Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03973/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03973-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dolby Laboratories International Services, Inc.
Defendant
Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation
Defendant
Dolby Laboratories Licensing International Services, Inc.
Defendant
Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
Defendant
Hui See Tan
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUI SEE TAN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DOLBY LABORATORIES, INC., a corporation

incorporated in the State of California, DOLBY

LABORATORIES INTERNATIONAL SERVICES,

INC., a California corporation incorporated in the State

of California, DOLBY LABORATORIES LICENSING

CORPORATION, INC., a corporation incorporated in the

State of New York doing business in the State of

California, DOLBY LABORATORIES LICENSING

INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC., a corporation

incorporated in the State of California, and DOES 1

through 100,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-03973 WHA

ORDER RE

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

AND VACATING

HEARING 

With respect to the failure of Ms. Williams to appear for her deposition, it appears that

there was good cause to miss the deposition until the children were recovered but the alleged

and prolonged “medical leave of absence” thereafter is too vague to justify the failure to appear. 

Tentatively, this alone would warrant denial of the summary-judgment motion. The burden is

on defendant to comply with the July 18 order and defendant has failed. The remedy is not to

keep ordering Ms. Williams to appear and to extend the case deadlines. The remedy may be to

deny the summary-judgment motion and to require a trial. Plaintiff will have to subpoena

Case 3:05-cv-03973-WHA Document 53 Filed 09/19/06 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

Ms. Williams for trial. Whether Ms. Williams’ testimony was truly needed to meet the issues

raised in the motion will be decided in ruling on the summary-judgment motion. 

With respect to all the other discovery disputes, they should have been made, under the

local rules, within seven court days of the fact discovery cutoff (or at least within seven court

days of the deposition where the documents were referenced), so these discovery motions are

DENIED. This is without prejudice to proving to the jury that “stonewalling” of discovery

occurred, if it has, although this will be regulated via motions in limine. 

If the parties agreed to produce Mr. Schumer on the 20th, then so be it. He must answer

as to his extracurricular relationship with Ms. Tan, even if not in the complaint, for it goes to

bias and his stake in dealings with her. Whether it will be admissible at trial will be another

matter. 

The discovery hearing on SEPTEMBER 26, 2006, AT 9:00 A.M. is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2006. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03973-WHA Document 53 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 2