RAMBUS INC.
12
15
10
11
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS
12
13
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rambus Inc.’s Motion to Compel deposition of Nanya 30(b)(6) designees on certain DDR3 SDRAM topics
Case No. CV 05-00334
Austin 45778v3
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2133 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 3 of 7
6 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 10, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as this
7
matter may be heard, Plaintiff Rambus, Inc. (“Rambus”) will and hereby does move, pursuant to
8
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 37, for an order compelling
9
Nanya to provide one or more corporate designees to testify with on Topics 1-11 set forth in
10
Rambus’s Notice of Deposition of Nanya pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
11
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS
12 Procedure, dated June 29, 2007, with respect to Nanya’s DDR3 SDRAM products within five
13
MCKOOL SMITH
14
15 Rambus’s motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of
16 Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Pierre Hubert filed herewith, all of the pleadings filed
17 in this action, and upon such further written argument as may be received by the Court.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rambus Inc.’s Motion to Compel deposition of Nanya 30(b)(6) designees on certain DDR3 SDRAM topics
Case No. CV 05-00334
Austin 45778v3
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2133 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 4 of 7
2
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
3
On June 29, 2007 Rambus, Inc. (“Rambus”) served its Notice of Deposition of Nanya
4
pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, setting forth eleven topics
5
6 related to Nanya DRAM products. (See Hubert Decl., ¶ 2 and Ex. A.) Rambus received
7 Nanya’s recent production of over four hundred thousand pages of documents, including many
8 documents related to its DDR3 SDRAM (“DDR3”) products, on August 8, 2008, and re-noticed
9
its deposition with respect to Nanya’s DDR3 products on August 20, 2008. (See Hubert Decl., ¶
10
3 and Ex. B.) In response, Nanya refused to designate a corporate witness, stating that a 30(b)(6)
11
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS
witness, Mr. Willie Liu, had already been provided with respect to DDR3. (See Hubert Decl., ¶
12
4 and Ex. C.) However, it is clear from the objections by counsel for Nanya during the
13
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
14 deposition that Mr. Liu did not act as a 30(b)(6) witness for Nanya with respect to DDR3.
15 Furthermore, Mr. Liu had only limited personal knowledge as to the eleven topics identified in
16 Rambus’s deposition notice with respect to Nanya’s DDR3 products. Counsel for Rambus and
17
Nanya conducted a meet and confer on August 29, 2008 and September 4, 2008, and were
18
unable to reach an agreement regarding Nanya’s provision of a corporate 30(b)(6) witness to
19
testify with respect to DDR3. (See Hubert Decl., ¶ 5 and Ex. F) Therefore, given the looming
20
21 deadline to file motions under Local Rule 26-2, Rambus brings this motion to compel the
1 Court may order discovery of any relevant matter. Id. Rambus seeks information in its
2 deposition topics related to the claims and defenses related to Nanya’s DDR3 products. (See
3
Hubert Decl., ¶ 2 and Ex. A.) DDR3 is properly the subject of this litigation. (See Hubert Decl.,
4
¶ 6 and Ex. D at 6-11.) However, Nanya has refused to provide a corporate witness as required
5
by Rule 30(b)(6) with respect to DDR3, claiming it has already provided such a witness, Mr.
6
Willie Liu, on October 17-18, 2007. (See Hubert Decl., ¶ 4 and Ex. C.) However, Nanya’s
7
8 argument is explicitly contradicted by objections made by Nanya’s counsel during Mr. Liu’s
9 deposition. During this deposition, counsel for Nanya repeatedly objected to questions related to
10 a number of Nanya products, including DDR3, stating that such questions were outside the scope
11
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS
13
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
14
15 Redacted
16
17
18
19
While Mr. Liu did
20
21 provide some information related to DDR3 while testifying in his personal capacity, his
22 knowledge of the deposition topics and specifically with respect to DDR3 product family was
23 limited.
24
25
Redacted
26
27
28
Rambus Inc.’s Motion to Compel deposition of Nanya 30(b)(6) designees on certain DDR3 SDRAM topics
Case No. CV 05-00334
2
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2133 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 6 of 7
2 August 8, 2008, over four hundred thousand pages of documents, including a significant number
3
of technical documents related to its DDR3 products, and Rambus has not had the opportunity to
4
question a corporate witness with respect to these materials. Nanya cannot have it both ways,
5
objecting to questions propounded to Mr. Liu regarding DDR3 during his deposition as outside
6
the scope of Rambus’s 30(b)(6) notice and directing the deponent to answer in his personal
7
8 capacity with respect to such objections, and now claiming that the witness was a corporate
9 30(b)(6) representative testifying on behalf of Nanya. Rambus therefore requests this Court to
10 compel Nanya to produce a 30(b(6) witness to testify with respect to Topics 1-11 of Rambus’s
11
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS
13 III. CONCLUSION
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
14
For these reasons, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rambus Inc.’s Motion to Compel deposition of Nanya 30(b)(6) designees on certain DDR3 SDRAM topics
Case No. CV 05-00334
3
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2133 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 7 of 7
2
Dated: September 5, 2008 Respectfully submitted,
3
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
4 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
5 MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
10
11
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS
12
13
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rambus Inc.’s Motion to Compel deposition of Nanya 30(b)(6) designees on certain DDR3 SDRAM topics
Case No. CV 05-00334
4