Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03643/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03643-21/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 REQUSTING 

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 116, 140

On July 9, 2015, Defendant issued a subpoena for documents and deposition to third party, 

SanDisk Corporation. On October 7, 2015, both Plaintiff and Defendant attended the deposition 

and questioned SanDisk’s corporate representative. On October 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion 

to compel a continuation of SanDisk’s deposition. Docket No. 116. 

Plaintiff requested that the court order a continuation of SanDisk’s deposition because 

Plaintiff believed it had not had sufficient opportunity prior to the October 7, 2015 deposition to 

review certain documents produced by SanDisk that Plaintiff received on October 1, 2015.

1

Defendant objected to continuation of the deposition on the grounds that Plaintiff lacked 

standing to seek an order enforcing the subpoena that Defendant, and not Plaintiff, had served on 

SanDisk, and that there was no reason to continue the deposition. SanDisk also submitted a 

statement to refute any claims that it had acted improperly, stated the efforts it had made to 

accommodate Plaintiff, and requested that the court deny Plaintiff’s request. 

The court requested supplemental briefing on the issue of Plaintiff’s standing to compel 

compliance with a subpoena that it had not issued. Docket No. 137. 

 

1

Plaintiff states that on October 1, 2015 it received nearly 900 pages of documents consisting of 

technical computer source code and a circuit board photo. The documents were initially 

designated “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” which prevented Plaintiff from sharing the documents with its 

expert. Plaintiff requested, and SanDisk granted, permission for Plaintiff to share the documents 

with its expert. 

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 143 Filed 12/04/15 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

In the parties’ supplemental briefing, Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is 

moot because Plaintiff has issued its own subpoena to SanDisk and thus will have an opportunity 

to further question SanDisk. Docket No. 140.

Plaintiff did not address this issue. By December 8, 2015, Plaintiff shall file a letter of no 

more than one page addressing the issue of whether its motion to compel [Docket No. 116] is

moot, in light of the fact that it has issued its own subpoena to SanDisk. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 143 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 2