In re Sandisk SSDS Litigation

Background

Plaintiffs asked Defendants to search the files of three additional custodians after the parties had agreed that Defendants would provide discovery from five custodians. Plaintiffs described the earlier discovery as an initial phase involving engineers and sales and marketing personnel. They said the additional custodians’ files were needed to examine upper management’s internal decisions, communications, and strategy after Defendants became aware of alleged defects.

The existing schedule set January 31, 2025, as the fact-discovery cutoff and February 14, 2025, as the deadline for substantial completion of document production. Judge Lin later extended the fact-discovery cutoff to April 1, 2025, but did not change the February 14 document-production deadline. Plaintiffs filed their joint discovery letter on February 6, 2025, proposing that the substantial-completion deadline be extended by two or three weeks to allow searches of the three additional custodians’ files.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which permits changing a court-ordered schedule only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that the focus is on the diligence of the party seeking the change. Plaintiffs had not mentioned additional custodians in their motion for a discovery extension filed one day after they requested the additional custodians, even though they had already described the five agreed custodians as only an initial phase. The court concluded that Plaintiffs waited too long to seek the additional discovery.

The court treated Matthew White differently from Robert Soderbery and David Goeckeler. White is identified as Western Digital’s Senior Vice President of Flash Product Management. Plaintiffs said Defendants first acknowledged White as a custodian of relevant evidence in an amended disclosure served on December 31, 2024. Defendants responded that they had already produced more than 500 documents authored by or including White. The court stated that Plaintiffs had not shown White’s files contained unique information not already produced, but also found the significance of the amended disclosure was not entirely clear. The court therefore left open the possibility that Plaintiffs could show White had unique, relevant evidence and that they had acted diligently.

Ruling

The court denied the request to add Robert Soderbery and David Goeckeler for failure to show diligence in complying with the case schedule. It did not reach the parties’ arguments about relevance, proportionality, or the apex doctrine as to those witnesses.

Judge A. J. Cisneros directed the parties to meet and confer in person or by videoconference about whether they could agree to limited discovery from White and a production deadline not long after the existing February 14 deadline. If they could not agree and Plaintiffs believed they could show diligence, the parties could file a joint letter by February 14, 2025, following the court’s specified requirements. The court stated that Plaintiffs’ request to add custodians was denied, without prejudice to pursuing limited discovery from White through that process.