Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01665/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-01665-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

UNISYS CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff(s),

v.

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

Case No. C-06-01665 PJH (JCS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

COMPEL [Docket Nos. 129 and 130]

Related Case No. C-06-2915 PJH (JCS)

[Docket No. 67]

I. THE MOTION

The Court has received a Joint Letter from Defendants Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix

Semiconductor America Inc. (collectively “Hynix”), Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi

Electric and Electronics USA, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric Europe, B.V. (collectively

“Mitsubishi”), and Plaintiffs Sun Microsystems, Inc. and Unisys Corporation, which the Court

construes as a motion to compel (the “Motion”). The following counsel appeared for argument on

the Motion before the undersigned on May 18, 2007: Daniel Cross, Jerome Murphy, and Christina

Dallen on behalf of Plaintiffs; Kenneth Keller, Terrence Truax, and Norm Hirsch on behalf of

Mitsubishi; Steven Bergman and Kenneth O’Rourke on behalf of Hynix; and Scott Morgan on

Case 4:06-cv-01665-PJH Document 143 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

behalf of the Mosel Defendants. For the reasons stated on the record, and good cause appearing, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

A. The deadline for Sun and Unisys to produce all non-privileged documents responsive

to the request for production of documents served on December 15, 2006, is June 30, 2007. Sun

and Unisys shall produce such documents on a rolling basis between the date of this Order and June

30, 2007, and shall produce all such documents not later than June 30, 2007.

B. Sun and Unisys shall produce, not later than June 30, 2007, all documents

specifically referring to the inclusion of any amounts paid by Sun or Unisys for DRAM products in

the price(s) charged by Sun and Unisys to their customers. Alternatively, if no such documents

exist, Sun and Unisys shall so state in a document response under oath.

C. Sun and Unisys shall fully respond to Mitsubishi’s Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, and 5 not

later than thirty (30) days before the date on which the first expert reports are due in these

matters. 

D. Except as stated above, the Motion is DENIED.

II. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

Except in an emergency, before filing any future discovery motions, the parties shall abide

by the following procedure to ensure the prompt resolution of any disputes:

A. Counsel for the parties shall first meet and confer to attempt to resolve any discovery

dispute. This may be done by telephone, e-mail, or other form of correspondence.

B. If the dispute is not resolved in short order through the meet-and-confer effort, lead

trial counsel for the parties involved in the dispute shall meet and confer in person to resolve any

disputes. Any party may demand such a meeting on five (5) business days’ notice. The location of

these meetings shall alternate, with Plaintiffs’ counsels’ offices being the first location for any such

in-person meeting, and Defendants’ counsel choosing the next location for an in-person meeting,

etc. The parties may also, by agreement, set the location of such in-person meetings. 

C. If the dispute is not resolved through this in-person meeting, the parties shall submit a

joint letter brief, not to exceed to three pages, setting forth the substance of the dispute, the positions

of each relevant party, and the final compromise positions offered.

Case 4:06-cv-01665-PJH Document 143 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

D. Upon receipt of the joint letter brief, the Court will determine what action will be

taken by either issuing a ruling, holding a telephonic hearing, or, in rare cases, requesting

supplemental briefing from the parties.

III. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

Any interrogatory response made under Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

shall include BATES numbers. The BATES numbers referred to shall, pursuant to Rule 33(d),

identify documents from the requested information can readily be identified. 

IV. DEPOSITIONS

A. The parties shall meet and confer with respect to the location of all depositions. The

Court expects, to the extent that a witness has travelled to the United States for business, or

otherwise done business in the United States, that generally those witness depositions will occur in

the United States. The deposing party shall be responsible for paying reasonable travel and lodging

costs for any foreign witness produced in the United States.

B. Deposition rules: all depositions taken in the United States will be governed by the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For any deposition taken outside of the United States, the parties

shall meet and confer on the reconciliation of the applicable foreign law with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. During depositions, counsel shall not instruct witnesses not to answer, except on

the grounds of attorney/client privilege, work product privilege, the Fifth Amendment to the United

States Constitution, beyond the scope of a 30(b)(6) topic for which the witness is designated, or any

other applicable privilege that prevents the witness from testifying.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2007 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-01665-PJH Document 143 Filed 05/21/07 Page 3 of 3