Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02863/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02863-58/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS

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

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES FIBER IP 

(SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

IPTRONICS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS

(Re: Docket No. 706)

Defendants IPtronics Inc. et al. allege that Plaintiffs Avago Technologies Inc. et al. failed 

to obey the court’s orders to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness,

1

and move for monetary and 

preclusion sanctions.2 IPtronics’ motion is DENIED.

I.

The origins of this dispute go back to November 2014, when IPtronics noticed a 30(b)(6) 

deposition on topics relating to Avago’s trade secret, Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

3

 

After IPtronics experienced significant difficulty in scheduling the deposition, they successfully 

moved to compel.

4

IPtronics then deposed Sharon Hall, Avago’s designated witness, on March 

18, 2015, but Hall was unable to speak to over a third of the noticed topics and could address the 

 

1

See Docket Nos. 537, 580.

2

See Docket No. 705-4.

3

See Docket No. 705-4 at 2-3.

4

See Docket Nos. 527, 537.

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 825 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS

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

rest only in-part, citing confidentiality concerns.

5

 Following another motion by IPtronics,

6

the 

court found that Avago had violated its previous discovery order, imposed monetary sanctions on 

Avago, ordered Avago to make available by June 1, 2015 “one or more 30(b)(6) witnesses 

adequately prepared on the noticed topics,” and ordered Avago to produce any outstanding 

documents reviewed by the witness in preparation for the deposition at least three days before the 

additional deposition.

7

 

On May 27, 2015, three business days before the deposition deadline, Avago amended 

their trade secret designations, reducing their trade secrets from 40 to three.8 On May 28, 2015, 

Avago produced documents that Hall had reviewed and would rely on. 9 On June 1, 2015, 

IPtronics deposed Hall on the new trade secret designations.10 The next day, June 2, 2015, Avago

produced two additional pages of documents.

11

Over a month and a half later, IPtronics notified Avago that they believed Avago had not 

“complied with the court’s order in requiring production of a 30(b)(6) witness on the trade secret 

issues, particularly in light of amending the trade secrets immediately before the deposition.”

12

 

IPtronics stated that this conduct prejudiced their ability to defend against “continually shifting”

and “unsupportable” claims, and they would be moving for sanctions.

13

 Avago responded that 

 

5

See Docket No. 580 at 3.

6

See Docket No. 542.

7 Docket No. 580 at 4, 8, 10-11.

8 Compare Docket No. 452-6 with Docket No. 705-6.

9

See Docket No. 706-11 at 1.

10 See

11 See Docket No. 706-7; Docket No. 735-1 at ¶ 6.

12 Docket No. 706-8 at 52:12-22.

13 Docket No. 706-9.

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 825 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS

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

they had complied—they had made Hall available for deposition on June 1, 2015, and produced 

the documents she reviewed and relied upon on May 28, 2015.

14

 Moreover, IPtronics had neither 

raised any issue about the new designations during the deposition, nor made any “claim about the 

sufficiency of Ms. Hall’s testimony” since the deposition.15 As for the amended trade secret 

designations, Avago stated that they were not newly formulated, but that they were “either the 

same as or compiled and re-stated from the previously designated trade secrets,” and explained 

how the new designations were related to the old designations.16

Following an unsuccessful meet and confer, IPtronics now moves for an order precluding 

Avago from presenting, in support of their trade secret claims, any evidence 1) concerning the 

trade secrets that were the subject of Avago’s September 12, 2012 and December 11, 2014 trade 

secret designations; 2) concerning the trade secrets that were the subject of Avago’s May 27, 2015 

trade secret designation and 3) that was first disclosed at the March 18, 2015 or June 1, 2015 Hall 

depositions.

17

 IPtronics also seeks to preclude Avago from further amending its trade secret 

designations and seeks its fees for the June 1, 2015 30(b)(6) deposition and for its motion for 

contempt and sanctions.18

II.

The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 1338(b) and 1367(a). This

matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 allows the court to impose evidentiary and monetary sanctions for 

discovery violations.19 Furthermore, “Rule 37 sanctions are mandatory and must be applied 

 

14 See Docket No. 706-11 at 1.

15 Id. at 1-2.

16 Id. at 2.

17 See Docket No. 705-4 at 1, 9-10.

18 Id. at 1.

19 See Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 825 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS

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

diligently both to penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction, [and] 

to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent.”20

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A), the court may sanction a party’s failure to obey an order 

to provide discovery by “prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated 

claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters into evidence.” “Preclusive sanctions 

are within the court’s discretion,”21 and magistrate judges may issue monetary and other nondispositive sanctions.22

 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) provides that when a party or its counsel violates a discovery 

order, the court must order the party, its counsel or both to pay the “reasonable expenses, 

including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure” to comply with a discovery order, unless the 

failure was “substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” 

 

20 Wingnut Films, Ltd. v. Katja Motion Pictures Corp., Case No. 05-cv-1516-RSWL, 2007 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 72953, at *54 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2007); see also Navellier, 262 F.3d at 947; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A) (“(2) Sanctions Sought in the District Where the Action Is Pending. (A) For

Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party or a party’s officer, director, or managing agent—or a

witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)—fails to obey an order to provide or permit

discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending

may issue further just orders. They may include the following: . . . (ii) prohibiting the disobedient

party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated

matters in evidence”).

21 See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Case No. 5:11-cv-1846-LHK, 2012 WL 1595784, at

*3 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) (citing Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 947 (9th Cir. 2001)

(“Sanctions may be warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) for failure to obey a

discovery order as long as the established issue bears a reasonable relationship to the subject of the

discovery.”)).

22 See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 888 F. Supp. 2d, 976, 985-86 (N.D. Cal. 2012)

(citing Herson v. City of Richmond, Case No. 4:09-cv-02516-PJH, 2011 WL 3516162, at *2 (N.D.

Cal. Aug. 11, 2011)); Io Grp. Inc. v. GLBT Ltd., Case No. 3:10-cv-1282-MMC, 2011 WL 

4974337 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011); Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. v. Glasforms, Inc., Case No. 

5:06-cv-3359-JF, 2009 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 62668 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2009); see also Grimes v. City 

and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding monetary sanctions 

imposed under Rule 37 are nondispositive); Maisonville v. F2 America, Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 747-48 

(9th Cir. 1990) (finding monetary sanction imposed pursuant to Rule 11 are non-dispositive); 

Keithley v. Homestore.com, Inc., Case No. 3:03-cv-04447-SI, 2008 WL 4830752 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 

6, 2008).

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 825 Filed 12/18/15 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS

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

“The burden is on the disclosing party to show that the failure to disclose information or witnesses 

was justified or harmless.”23 

III.

Cutting to the chase, the dispositive question in determining whether monetary and 

preclusion sanctions are appropriate here is whether Avago violated the court’s order. The court 

ordered Avago to do two things: first, to produce a 30(b)(6) witness “adequately prepared on the 

noticed topics,” and second, to produce any outstanding documents at least three days before the 

deposition.

24

 Regarding the 30(b)(6) deposition, IPtronics did not allege, either in its 

communications with Avago or in its motion to the court, that Hall was unprepared for the 

deposition.

25

 While Avago changed the scope of the trade secrets claimed just two days before the 

deposition, IPtronics has not identified any questions that Hall could not answer or any topic on

which she was not prepared.

26

 Regarding the document production, Avago produced the 

documents that Hall had reviewed and intended to rely upon in her deposition on May 29, 2015, 

three days before the June 1, 2015 deposition.27 Although Avago also produced other documents

on June 2, 2015, these documents were unrelated to the trade secret claims and the 30(b)(6) 

deposition, and Hall did not review them in preparation for her deposition.28 Because the court’s 

order covered only documents relating to the 30(b)(6) deposition, Avago has not violated the 

court’s order.

 

23 FormFactor, Inc. v. Micro-Probe, Inc., Case No. 4:10-cv-3095-PJH, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

62233, at *26 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2012) (citing Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259

F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001)).

24 Docket No. 580 at 8, 10-11.

25 See Docket Nos. 706-8, 706-9, 706-10, 705-4.

26 See Docket Nos. 706-8, 706-9, 706-10, 705-4.

27 See Docket No. 735 at 4, 9.

28 See Docket No. 735-1 at ¶ 6.

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 825 Filed 12/18/15 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS

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

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 825 Filed 12/18/15 Page 6 of 6