Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00643/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00643-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE NETFLIX ANTITRUST LITIGATION

_____________________________________/

This Document Relates To: 

ALL ACTIONS

 /

No. C 07-00643 WHA

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

The Court has read the June 25 and June 26 discovery letters. 

As for the scope of the search, the document search described in the second paragraph of

the June 25 letter will be adequate. It should be completed on time. If plaintiffs believe it is

inadequate, then plaintiffs may serve reasonable discovery requests on Amazon and Wal-Mart

so long as it is done expeditiously, including service of narrowly-directed requests aimed at

“enforcement” of either of the two patents in suit (and nothing more). Any such discovery

would have to be served by July 11, 2007, with return dates of 30 days, which return dates

should not have to be extended due to the narrowness of the requests, i.e., either Netflix did or

did not threaten enforcement of the patents (or either of them) against Wal-Mart or Amazon. 

For the record, it is noted that Netflix states that it does not oppose this third-party

discovery. 

In connection with all of the foregoing, it seems to the Court that this entire case hangs

by the “enforcement” thread. As already ruled, if plaintiff cannot show enforcement then there

Case 3:07-cv-00643-WHA Document 46 Filed 06/26/07 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

is no Sherman Act case. If the discovery above eliminates “enforcement,” then the Court will

entertain a summary judgment motion dispositive of the case, the foregoing discovery being

ample to satisfy Rule 56(f). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00643-WHA Document 46 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2