SanDisk3D IP Holdings Ltd., et al. v. Viasat, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied SanDisk’s motion to strike Viasat’s supplemental responses to interrogatories concerning noninfringement contentions and noninfringing alternatives. The court also denied SanDisk’s motion to shorten time as moot and granted the parties’ motions to seal materials containing sensitive business information.

Holdings

1. The motion to strike Viasat's Third Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 8 was denied because SanDisk did not demonstrate diligence in seeking more detailed responses earlier, material prejudice, or a material shift in Viasat's noninfringement contentions.
2. The motion to strike Viasat's Second Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 14 was denied because SanDisk did not show diligence, material prejudice, a surprise issue, or a material shift in Viasat's contentions regarding noninfringing alternatives and damages.
3. SanDisk's motion to shorten time was denied as moot because the briefing and hearing deadlines had passed and the underlying motion to strike was decided on the submitted papers.
4. The parties' motions to seal were granted because the materials contained source code and highly confidential business information whose disclosure could cause competitive harm, satisfying the compelling-reasons standard.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Viasat's final supplemental responses to SanDisk's contention interrogatories should be stricken because they were served late in the discovery period and allegedly prejudiced SanDisk.
2. Whether SanDisk's motion to shorten time should be denied as moot after the underlying motion was decided on the submitted briefing.
3. Whether portions of the parties' motion papers and supporting exhibits should be sealed based on confidential source code and sensitive business information.

Disposition

other