Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03643/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03643-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED 

LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03643-CW (DMR)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTERS

Re: Dkt. No. 116, 140, 144

On July 9, 2015, Defendant Hewlett-Packard (“HP”) issued a document and deposition 

subpoena to third party SanDisk Corporation. On October 7, 2015, Plaintiffs and HP attended the 

deposition and questioned SanDisk’s corporate representative. On October 16, 2015, Plaintiffs

filed a motion to compel a continuation of SanDisk’s deposition. [Docket No. 116.] Plaintiffs

argued that they should be entitled to reopen the San Disk deposition because they were not 

provided a sufficient opportunity to review approximately 900 pages of documents consisting of 

computer source code and a circuit board photo produced by SanDisk shortly before the 

deposition. In response, HP argued that Plaintiffs did not have standing to seek such relief, 

because the San Disk subpoena had been served by HP. Id. Plaintiffs did not address the issue of 

standing in the joint discovery letter. Id. On November 25, 2015, the court ordered supplemental 

briefing on the issue of Plaintiffs’ standing to compel compliance with the subpoena served by 

Defendant on SanDisk. [Docket No. 137.]

In the supplemental briefing, HP argued that Plaintiffs did not have standing to move to 

compel, and that Plaintiffs’ motion was moot because Plaintiffs had served their own subpoena on

SanDisk and thus would have an opportunity to obtain further deposition testimony. [Docket No. 

140.] In Plaintiff’s supplemental briefing, Plaintiffs conceded that they were not aware of any 

precedent addressing the issue of their standing to move to compel compliance with a subpoena 

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 145 Filed 12/17/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

issued by another party, but argued that they should have a right to continue the deposition of 

SanDisk without issuing their own subpoena. [Docket No. 140.] Plaintiffs also acknowledged

that they had issued their own subpoena to SanDisk. Id. at 2. In a further submission, Plaintiffs 

assert that the issuance of their own subpoena did not moot their motion to compel compliance,

because Plaintiffs anticipate that SanDisk will file a motion to quash the subpoena, or for a 

protective order. [Docket No. 144.]

Plaintiffs’ speculation about SanDisk’s response to their subpoena does not present a ripe 

dispute. In light of the fact that Plaintiffs have served their own subpoena on SanDisk, the court 

finds that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a continuation of SanDisk’s deposition taken pursuant to 

Defendant’s subpoena is moot. If a dispute arises regarding Plaintiffs’ subpoena, the parties shall 

promptly meet and confer about the dispute, and shall file a joint discovery letter if appropriate.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the continuation of SanDisk’s deposition [Docket No. 116] is 

denied as moot. This order resolves the discovery letters filed as Docket No. 116, 140, and 144. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 145 Filed 12/17/15 Page 2 of 2