Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHIA CORPORATION, No. C-06-00162 MMC (JCS)

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL

v.

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR, LTD., 

ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

On April 25, 2007, the parties wrote to the Court a joint letter (the “Joint Letter”) [Docket

No. 239] seeking the resolution of various issues related to document production in this case. The

Court treats the Joint Letter as a “Motion to Compel.” 

First, Nichia seeks the production of all responsive documents created after the filing of the

lawsuit in this matter. At least, that is the Court’s impression – Nichia’s position in the Joint Letter

is not well spelled out. It may be that Nichia only seeks documents responsive to the Court’s

previous discovery orders, but which are dated after the commencement of this litigation. In any

event, it is transparent that the Joint Letter does not sufficiently define the categories of information

that Nichia seeks in this area.

To the extent the Motion is focused on post-filing documents, the Motion is DENIED. Seoul

has produced post-filing damages documentation. While other documentation may be relevant

under certain circumstances, the broad sweep of the Motion is certainly not justified. Moreover, it is

troubling to the Court that Seoul previously alerted the Court and the parties that it was cutting off

certain document productions as of the date of the filing of this litigation. See, e.g., December 21,

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 248 Filed 04/30/07 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

1

 Nichia’s request for an order compelling Seoul to produce all of the “underlying data used to

create the produced profitability report and Bill of Materials, and all similar documents from June 2004

to the present” is overbroad. Nichia has not met its burden of demonstrating that these documents –

which on the face of the request could be a huge amount of data – are necessary in light of the other

information that Seoul has produced on damages. While Nichia complains that these documents are

necessary because many of the damages documents produced by Seoul were generated specifically for

the litigation – this sort of document request goes way too far: Nichia does not request, for example,

documents sufficient to test the accuracy of the data that Seoul has produced. Rather, it makes a demand

for a sweeping production of underlying accounting information and data which is not demonstrably

necessary to a calculation of damages.

2

2006 Joint Letter [Docket No. 162] and March 14, 2007 Joint Letter [Docket No. 198]. In response,

the Court has already found that Plaintiff “has not met its burden of demonstrating that Defendants

failed to comply with this Court’s December 22, 2006 Order.”

Second, Nichia seeks the production of Seoul’s “monthly or quarterly profitability reports

and Bill of Materials with changes over time for 902 Series LEDs . . . .” Joint Letter at 5. The

documents that exist have been produced. In addition, damages information has been generated by

Seoul showing unit sales and dollar sales by customers, products, and by month, the cost of goods

sold, gross profits by product code, variable operating expenses by month, and monthly gross and

incremental profit by product code by month. In addition, Nichia will take the deposition of a

30(b)(6) witness on damages and be able to ask questions it likes on these data. Accordingly, this

portion of the Motion is DENIED.1

Nonetheless, Seoul has agreed to produce, if available, underlying price histories for the

materials in the Bill of Materials. In addition, Seoul has agreed to produce post-litigation

indemnification agreements pertaining to the 902 LED Series. Accordingly, to the extent the Motion

seeks these documents, the Motion is GRANTED. 

The parties are at odds as to whether or not the Joint Letter is timely. Due to the confusion

on the appropriate date for cut-off for motions to compel regarding fact-discovery, the Court has

determined to rule on the Motion. For clarity, the Court issues the following Order: the Court will

accept no more motions to compel regarding non-expert discovery, other than motions to compel

responses to specific deposition questions. Motions to compel responses to specific deposition

questions during non-expert discovery must be made no later than May 2, 2007. Motions to

compel responses to expert discovery will be governed by the Local Rules.

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 248 Filed 04/30/07 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2007

___________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 248 Filed 04/30/07 Page 3 of 3