Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03171/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03171-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

C-04-3171 ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OKI America, Inc, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 04-3171 CRB (JL)

ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER

Introduction

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Charles R.

Breyer) as provided by 28 U.S.C. §636 and Civil Local Rule 72. 

Discovery Disputes

The parties filed joint and separate statements regarding a number of discovery

disputes, specifically:

OKI’s motion to compel production of documents related to Japanese Proceeding

Re AMD’s Japanese Counterpart to U.S. Patent # 4,960,732 (Docket # 266); 

OKI’s motion to compel production of documents in response to OKI’s Third and

Fourth Sets of Requests for production of Documents (271); 

OKI’s motion to compel answers to its fourth set of interrogatories (272);

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 301 Filed 08/02/06 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

1

 The dispute over the deposition of Christopher Ryan is resolved by Judge Breyer’s

order e-filed at Docket # 297 and is therefore off-calendar.

C-04-3171 ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER Page 2 of 2

OKI’s Motion to compel deposition of Christopher Ryan (234); 1

OKI’s Motion to compel 30(b)(6) deposition of AMD (235); 

OKI’s Motion to expedite discovery (240).

If there are additional discovery disputes which have been e-filed with the Court but

which are not listed here or which arise between now and the meet and confer session, this

order shall apply to those disputes as well. The Court has taken under submission without

a hearing the parties’ discovery dispute regarding the deposition of Pankaj Dixit (227 and

228).

Order

In the interest of judicial economy and to facilitate the resolution of these disputes,

the Court hereby orders all counsel involved with any of these motions to meet and confer

as provided in this Court’s Standing Order, that is, in person for counsel in the San

Francisco Bay Area and by teleconference for counsel located outside this area, and

provide to the Court a statement on the status of their disputes no less than one week prior

to the hearing on these motions, August 23, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom F, 15th Floor,

450 Golden Gate Avenue.

The statement shall include who attended the meet and confer session or sessions,

what discovery issues they discussed and what proposed solutions they offered and to

which of these they were able to agree. Finally the parties and non-parties shall advise the

Court which, if any, of these disputes remain for resolution by the Court at the hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 2, 2006

__________________________________

JAMES LARSON

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 301 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 2