Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01958/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01958-13/pdf.json

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

---

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

05cv1958-B (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

BROADCOM CORPORATION,

Defendant. 

and RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05cv1958-B (BLM)

ORDER DENYING QUALCOMM

INCORPORATED’S EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO SERVE REQUESTS FOR

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

[Doc. No. 773]

As set forth in this Court’s April 3, 2008 Order, the parties are

to present their requests for documents to each other, and serve

subpoenas duces tecum upon third parties for the production of

documents, on or before April 11, 2008. See Doc. No. 765. By ex parte

application filed today, Qualcomm requests that the Court extend that

deadline until after the Court rules on Qualcomm’s pending Motion

Regarding Remand Proceedings [Doc. No. 763].

The pending motion asks the Court to clarify that any disclosure

of attorney-client privileged material would be without waiver of that

privilege and to implement adequate measures to protect Qualcomm’s

privilege. See Doc. No. 773 (Qualcomm’s summary of its briefing).

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 774 Filed 04/11/08 Page 1 of 2
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- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

Qualcomm contends that it cannot comply with the current deadline for

serving requests for production of documents until the Court rules on

the pending motion because Qualcomm will be “unable to make informed

judgments about the scope and subject matter of documents it should

seek, or whether it should request any documents at all.” Doc. No. 773.

However, Qualcomm does not provide any specific explanation of why the

outcome of the motion will affect its ability to request the production

of documents. To the extent Qualcomm’s ex parte application actually

objects to the production of documents prior to resolution of the

privilege and disclosure issues, the application is premature and

directed to the wrong deadline. The Court highlights that the April 11,

2008 deadline applies only to service of requests. 

Accordingly, Qualcomm’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 11, 2008

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO:

HONORABLE RUDI M. BREWSTER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 774 Filed 04/11/08 Page 2 of 2