Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02000/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02000-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,

Defendant. /

No. C-04-02000 CW (EDL)

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S REQUEST

FOR EMERGENCY HEARING

On August 4, 2006, O2 Micro filed a request for emergency hearing, arguing that MPS failed

to comply with the Court’s May 30, 2006 discovery order. Specifically, O2 Micro contends that

MPS has failed to produce documents in response to O2 Micro’s amended document requests and

has failed to timely produce a witness for Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. O2 Micro seeks an Order

requiring MPS to produce documents, a privilege log and a Rule 30(b)(6) witness no later than

August 11, 2006.

MPS produced documents on June 28, 2006 and July 25, 2006 in response to O2 Micro’s

discovery requests. MPS has not produced a privilege log. MPS states in its response to O2 Micro’s

emergency hearing request that it will serve a privilege log and final document production “this

week.” Accordingly, O2 Micro’s emergency request for production of documents and a privilege

log by August 11, 2006 is granted. 

The parties’ briefs reflect a series of events that resulted in delay of the Rule 30(b)(6)

deposition. On June 5, 2006, O2 Micro served its Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, which MPS

contends was deficient. It is troubling that it appears that the parties failed to communicate about

the deposition notice until late July 2006. By that time, scheduling the deposition was complicated

by the witness’s vacation schedule, MPS’s counsel’s paternity leave and a conflict issue raised by

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 297 Filed 08/10/06 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

O2 Micro with respect to newly added counsel. Because the Rule 30(b)(6) witness is unavailable

until August 14, the Court denies O2 Micro’s emergency request to order MPS to produce the

witness by August 11. MPS shall produce its witness for deposition on August 16, 2006. While the

circumstances leading to delay were largely beyond counsels’ control, O2 Micro is facing an

imminent summary judgment motion filing date and may have grounds to seek a continuance of the

filing deadline from Judge Wilken, or, if she prefers, before this Court. 

O2 Micro’s request for preclusive sanctions is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 297 Filed 08/10/06 Page 2 of 2