In re Sandisk SSDS Litigation
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 In re SANDISK SSDs LITIGATION. Case No. 23-cv-04152-RFL (LJC)
ORDER RESOLVING DISCOVERY
LETTER BRIEF REGARDING
INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER
10 Re: Dkt. No. 164
The parties have filed a joint discovery letter brief addressing instances where defense counsel instructed Defendant SanDisk LLC’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness Dr. Matthew White not to answer certain questions at a deposition. Those instructions fall in two general categories: instructions not to answer questions that defense counsel believed fell outside the scope of the deposition notice, and instructions not to answer based on attorney-client privilege. Defendants have apparently conceded, correctly, that they were wrong to instruct White not to answer questions based on the scope of the notice. ECF No. 164 at 3 n.1. Defendants have agreed to reopen the deposition to allow Plaintiffs to ask those questions again, as well as any relevant follow-up questions that might flow from White’s answers. Id. 21…