Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 414 Filed 12/05/22 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`
`Case No. 20-cv-06754-WHA (DMR)
`
`
`ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
`JOINT LETTER
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 377
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`The parties filed a joint discovery letter in which Defendant Sonos, Inc. moves to compel
`
`Plaintiff Google LLC to designate a witness or witnesses to testify in response to Sonos’s Rule
`
`30(b)(6) deposition notice and to respond to an interrogatory. [Docket No. 377; see also Docket
`
`No. 394.] On December 5, 2022, in response to a court order, the parties filed a joint letter in
`
`which Defendant withdrew the portion of its motion seeking a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on Topic No.
`
`1(iii)(a)-(c), stream transfer functionality. [Docket Nos. 411, 413.] Accordingly, the outstanding
`
`disputes are:
`
`1. Whether Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) Topic No. 1 contains impermissible “subtopics” in
`
`excess of the number allowed by the Honorable William H. Alsup’s Supplemental Order to Order
`
`Setting Initial Case Management Conference in Civil Cases;
`
`2. an additional designee on Topic 1(i);
`
`3. an additional designee on Topic No. 1(v)(a)-(d), (vi)(a)-(d), (vii)(a)-(d) (“controller
`
`device” topic);
`
`4. an additional designee on Topic No. 1(vi)(b)/(d), (vii)(b)/(d) (“cast-enabled player”
`
`topic); and
`
`5. a supplemental response to Defendant’s interrogatory no. 14.
`
`[See Docket No. 413.]
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 414 Filed 12/05/22 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`The court lacks sufficient information to rule on disputes three and four because the parties
`
`gave the court very little to go on. Defendant maintains that Plaintiff’s witness on these two topics
`
`was “not competent,” citing “I don’t know”-type responses to various questions. Jt. Letter 2.
`
`Plaintiff counters that the two topics are “overbroad” and that its designee “testif[ied] at a
`
`reasonable level of detail,” citing to pages of the deposition transcript without stating what the
`
`witness said. Id. at 5. The foregoing is the extent of the parties’ arguments on these disputes. The
`
`court cannot evaluate the adequacy of Plaintiff’s witness’s testimony on the current record.
`
`Accordingly, by no later than December 9, 2022, the parties shall file a supplemental joint letter.
`
`Addressing each of the two topics separately (i.e., controller device topic and cast-enabled player
`
`topic), Plaintiff shall explain why its designee’s testimony was “at a reasonable level of detail,”
`
`and Defendant shall explain why the testimony on the topic was insufficient. The parties shall
`
`support their positions with illustrative examples of the testimony. The parties shall meet and
`
`confer to jointly file one exhibit containing all relevant portions of the transcript, with each side
`
`using a different color to highlight the relevant testimony that it claims supports its position. The
`
`joint letter may not exceed two pages total and may not include footnotes.
`
`The December 8, 2022 hearing is vacated. The court will set a hearing, if appropriate, on
`
`the outstanding disputes upon submission of the supplemental joint letter.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: December 5, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`Donna M. Ryu
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`S D ISTRICT
`
`C O
`
`E
`
`T
`
`A
`
`S T
`I T I S S O O R D E R E D
` R y u
`
`U
`
`R
`
`T
`
`ORNIA
`
`C ALIF
`
`J u d g e D o n n a M .
`
`D
`
`UNITE
`
`N O R
`
`T
`
`F
`
`O
`
`H ER
`
`N
`
`DISTRI C T
`
`