Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03885/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03885-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

 Although there are multiple, related defendants, for convenience, they are here

referred to for convenience in the singular as "ATI" or "defendant."

2

 High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) is a specification developed to

protect digital entertainment. Digital Content Protection, LLC (organization that licenses

HDCP technology), http://www.digital-cp.com/home (last visited Feb. 11, 2008).

* E-filed 2/12/08 *

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In Re ATI Technologies HDCP Litigation

 /

NO. C 06-01303 JW (HRL)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

(Docket No. 68)

Plaintiffs’ putative class action for unfair competition and false advertising alleges that

ATI's1 graphics cards were marketed as compliant with the HDCP standard2 when they were

not. Judge Ware, after denying class certification without prejudice, reopened class

certification discovery because defendant thwarted and confounded plaintiffs' previous

discovery efforts through certain misrepresentations. Specifically, plaintiffs were allowed to

again pursue discovery on whether defendant's activities support applying California law to a

nationwide class (Shutts) and whether there are material misrepresentations sufficient to infer

class reliance (Vasquez). Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 821-22 (1985);

Vasquez v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 3d 800 (Cal. 1971). 

Case 5:06-cv-03885-JW Document 8 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 6
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

Dissatisfied with what they see as defendant's skimpy, evasive responses to their

renewed discovery, plaintiffs move to compel document responses and answers to

interrogatories. The parties worked out their differences on some of the items, and by the time

of the hearing the disputed ones had been whittled down to Request for Production (RFP)

numbers 35 through 40 and 54 and Interrogatories 5 through 12. The key point of contention

between the parties on these remaining items is this: which of defendant’s graphics cards are

alleged to have been misrepresented as compliant with the HDCP standard? This determination

impacts the analysis of (and, ultimately, compliance with) most of the disputed RFPs and

Interrogatories. 

Defense counsel told this court that, during the time in question, ATI offered about 54

different graphics cards. The plaintiffs do not “accuse” all 54 of being marketed as HDCP

compliant. They did identify the Radeon 9800, X550, X1900, X1800, 1300, and 1600. 

Accordingly, ATI says that, if asked, it would provide reasonable discovery about those

particular cards. (Transcript 11:19-24). But, that is not how the plaintiffs defined what they

want. They want discovery about each graphics card that the defendant advertised (or marketed

or represented) as HDCP “ready” (or “capable” or “compliant”). ATI's opposition to this

definition was vigorous and to the point: ATI could not produce discovery under that definition

because, during that time, it never advertised ANY graphics card as HDCP Ready. To be

forced to turn over discovery in “compliance” with the offered definition would, in effect,

amount to an admission that it had offered graphics cards as HDCP Ready when, ATI asserts, it

did not. (Indeed, plaintiffs say - and ATI does not yet dispute - that defendant did not have the

rights to any HDCP technology at the time.)

This court now undertakes to craft a definition of the “accused” cards that gets plaintiffs

the discovery they are entitled to but does not unfairly put ATI into a box or require it to

produce information about all 54 cards (unless all 54 turn out to be responsive to the new

definition). When pressed by this court at the hearing, defense counsel very cautiously

acknowledged that the acronym HDCP did “show up” on some of defendant's web pages “in

relation to a card.” Other than insisting that this “relation[ship]” was not advertising, he could

Case 5:06-cv-03885-JW Document 8 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 6
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 "Cards" includes:

(1) individually identified cards, e.g., "Radeon 9800";

(2) groups, categories, classifications, or models of cards, e.g., "the X Series"; and

(3) cards generically, e.g., "ATI's graphics cards".

3

not effectively explain what is was. (Transcript 11:34). In any event, this appears to be exactly

the kind of information to which plaintiffs are entitled. When this court offered that observation

to defense counsel, he said, if that information were produced, plaintiffs “will say it’s an ad and

defendant will say it’s not.” That may be so, but the “it” needs to be produced so the trial court

can ultimately decide that very question.

Accordingly, for purposes of ruling on this motion, this court discards plaintiffs’

terminology (“HDCP Ready Products”) with its accompanying definition and substitutes

“Accused Cards” to be defined as follows:

a) Stand alone graphics cards Radeon 9800, X550, X1900, X1800, 1300, and

1600; and

b) Any of ATI's stand alone graphics cards3

 that during the relevant time period

on any of defendant's web pages, or in any advertising, promotional, or

marketing materials were (1) referenced or mentioned in conjunction with

HDCP, or (2) the subject of an expressed or implied associational link or a

"relation[ship]" with HDCP.

This court now addresses the disputed discovery items: 

a. RFP No. 35 (“State of mind” documents about ATI's decision to market HDCP

Ready Products). With the new definition, changed to read: documents about

defendant's decisions to reference, mention, or suggest an associational link or

relationship with HDCP. GRANTED.

b. RFP No.'s 36 through 39. The parties advised at the hearing that they had come

to agreement on what would be produced once the court had decided how to

define the accused products. That has been done, and so the motion as to these

RFPs is DENIED AS MOOT.

Case 5:06-cv-03885-JW Document 8 Filed 02/12/08 Page 3 of 6
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

4

c. RFP 40 (Documents relating to communications between ATI and Digital

Content Protection). Defendant argues that only communications to or from

DCP and defendant in California are fair game because that is all Shutts would

require. That may be true, but the request includes communications between ATI

and DCP (the organization that owns the HDCP technology), which goes to

Vasquez and justifies communications beyond California. GRANTED. 

d. RFP 54 (E-mails to and from defendant's President, David Orton, referencing

HDCP). Defendant opposes any production here as not relevant either to Shutts

or Vasquez. This court disagrees. Apparently, Orton either resided in or spent

large blocks of time in California, which fits with Shutts. And, it is not

unreasonable to find out what the president said or knew about HDCP, which is,

after all, what this case is about. The production request goes to the materiality

of any misrepresentations. GRANTED.

e. Interrogatory 5 (Identify and describe each HDCP-Ready Product). With the

new definition substituted: GRANTED.

f. Interrogatory 6 (What employees performed tasks on the HDCP-Ready

Products?). With the new definition, and limited to California employees:

GRANTED.

g. Interrogatory 7 (What tasks did these employees perform?). With the new

definition, and limited to California employees: GRANTED. However, only

identify documents referring or relating to advertising, promotions, or marketing.

h. Interrogatory 8 (Identify any non-employees who worked on HDCP-Ready

Products). With the new definition: GRANTED.

Case 5:06-cv-03885-JW Document 8 Filed 02/12/08 Page 4 of 6
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

5

i. Interrogatory 9 (Describe tasks done by California employees). Redundant with

revised Interrogatory No. 7. DENIED.

j. Interrogatory 10 (Identify anyone who had a hand in deciding to represent that

any graphics cards were HDCP Ready Products). With the new definition,

answer as to anyone involved in referencing, mentioning, linking, or suggesting

any kind of a relationship between the Accused Cards and HDCP. GRANTED.

k. Interrogatory 11 (What did the persons identified in #10 do on that subject?). 

GRANTED.

l. Interrogatory 12 (Why did ATI advertise products as HDCP ready?). With the

new definition, answer as to the decisions to reference, mention, link or suggest

any kind of relationship between the Accused Cards and HDCP. GRANTED.

Defendant shall submit all responsive documents and answer the interrogatories by

February 27, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/12/08 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-03885-JW Document 8 Filed 02/12/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Alexander E Barnett abarnett@masonlawdc.com 

Brett Davis Collins brett.collins@lw.com, christina.vankrugel@lw.com 

Charles Ward Cox chuck.cox@lw.com 

Alan Himmelfarb Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net 

Joshua N. Holian joshua.holian@lw.com 

Scott A Kamber skamber@kolaw.com, drubin@kolaw.com 

Gary E. Mason gmason@masonlawdc.com, mdicocco@masonlawdc.com,

nmigliaccio@masonlawdc.com 

David Christopher Parisi dcparisi@msn.com, shavensbeckman@msn.com 

Charles H. Samel charles.samel@lw.com, #dclitigationservices@lw.com,

david.nichols@lw.com, jennifer.carmassi@lw.com, terry.hele@lw.com 

Margaret M. Zwisler margaret.zwisler@lw.com, david.nichols@lw.com,

dclitigationservices@lw.com, natesha.smith@lw.com, tracey.watson@lw.com 

Jiyoun Chung jiyoun.chung@shearman.com 

Jeffrey S. Facter jfacter@shearman.com, jae.ko@shearman.com,

rcheatham@shearman.com 

Joshua H. Haffner jhh7007@yahoo.com 

Suzanne L. Havens Beckman shavensbeckman@msn.com 

Notice has been delivered by other means to: 

B. J. Wade 

Glassman Edwards Wade & Wyatt, P. C.

26 N. Second Street

Memphis, TN 38103

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 2/12/08 

 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:06-cv-03885-JW Document 8 Filed 02/12/08 Page 6 of 6