Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATMEL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 AUTHENTEC INC,

Defendant. /

No. C-06-02138 CW (EDL)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO COMPEL

On November 6, 2007, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Atmel’s Compliance with

Discovery Obligations, raising issues relating to compliance with the Court’s prior discovery order

as well as new discovery disputes. On November 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the

motion to compel. Defendant filed a reply on November 27, 2007. Because this matter is

appropriate for decision without oral argument, the hearing set for December 11, 2007 is vacated. 

A party filing a motion to compel must certify that it met and conferred with the opposing

party prior to filing the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). “The mere sending of a written, electronic

or voice-mail communication, however, does not satisfy a requirement to ‘meet and confer’ or to

‘confer.’ Rather, this requirement can be satisfied only through direct dialogue and discussion -

either in a face to face meeting or in a telephone conversation.” Civil L.R. 1-5(n). Here, Defendant

has failed to demonstrate that it engaged in any direct dialogue or discussion as required by Civil

Local Rule 1-5(n) prior to filing the motion to compel. Defendant states that it has provided

“myriad documentary evidence” of its meet and confer with Plaintiff. That documentary evidence,

however, consists of four letters and two e-mail communications that it sent to Plaintiff, none of

which indicate any oral discussion of the issues took place. See DeMory Decl. Exs. 2, 11, 15, 16,

21, 22. The telephone discussion that took place on November 14, 2007, after the motion to compel

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 232 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 2
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

was filed, does not satisfy the meet and confer requirement. See Supp. DeMory Decl. ¶ 2. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel is denied without prejudice. The parties are

ordered to meet and confer immediately and in person regarding this motion to compel and all other

pending or anticipated discovery motions. While the Court hopes it will not be necessary, if bona

fide discovery disputes genuinely remain as part of this motion to compel after the parties have met

and conferred in good faith, Defendant may file a renewed motion on the remaining disputes.

In general, the Court is troubled by both parties’ inability to reach reasonable resolutions of

discovery disputes in this case. In addition to this motion, the Court has heard six discovery motions

between September 11, 2007 and October 23, 2007 in this case, and another discovery motion is

scheduled to be heard on shortened time on December 11, 2007. Neither side is blameless in

contributing to the motion practice in this case. As reflected in the Court’s orders on the prior

motions, there has been overreaching by both sides. Accordingly, henceforth, the most senior

counsel listed on the docket, i.e., Edward Poplawski for Plaintiff and Henry Bunsow for Defendant,

shall meet and confer in person before filing any future discovery motion in this case, and shall meet

and confer in person regarding the Motion to Modify the Designation of Allegedly Highly

Confidential Documents scheduled for hearing on December 11, 2007 and any renewed motion to

compel filed in accordance with this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 232 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 2