In re SanDisk SSDs Litigation

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California addresses motions to reopen depositions, disputes concerning the deposition of SanDisk’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness Matthew White, and motions to file exhibits under seal. The court permits limited reopening of depositions to address documents produced after the original depositions and related follow-up questions, while denying sanctions concerning the canceled White deposition. The court grants specified sealing motions and orders Plaintiffs to publicly file an exhibit that Defendants did not seek to seal.

Holdings

1. The court granted plaintiffs a limited opportunity to reopen three depositions because defendants' failure to produce discoverable documents before the original depositions impeded plaintiffs' examinations.
2. The reopened depositions were limited to questions concerning documents produced after the original depositions, testimony from other reopened depositions, and reasonable follow-up questions, rather than serving as complete do-overs.
3. White's reopened deposition was limited to the specific questions he was wrongfully instructed not to answer, relevant follow-up questions, questions concerning documents produced after the original deposition, and related matters within the Rule 30(b)(6) topics for which he had been designated.
4. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions under Rule 37(d)(1)(A) was denied because defendants' conduct was substantially consistent with Rule 37(d)(2)'s recognition that a party need not appear for a deposition while a motion for a protective order is pending.
5. The court granted the sealing motions as to the specified exhibits upon a sufficient showing of good cause, while requiring Exhibit 13 to be filed publicly because defendants had not pursued its sealing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs should be permitted to reopen three employee depositions to address documents produced after the original depositions.
2. What subjects and limitations should govern the reopened deposition of SanDisk LLC's Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Dr. Matthew White.
3. Whether defendants' cancellation of the scheduled White deposition warranted sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(1)(A).
4. Whether the parties had shown sufficient cause to seal specified exhibits filed in connection with the discovery motions.

Disposition

other