In re Sandisk SSDS Litigation
- Cisneros
- 3:23-cv-04152
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In re Sandisk SSDs Litigation: Judge Cisneros struck the parties’ discovery letter and allowed a longer replacement if needed.
The parties, particularly Plaintiffs and SanDisk LLC, were affected by the striking of their joint discovery letter and the directions for any replacement submission. The order also concerns the proposed deposition of David Goeckeler.
What happened
In re SANDISK SSDs LITIGATION concerns a dispute over whether Plaintiffs may question SanDisk LLC’s CEO, David Goeckeler, in a deposition. The parties submitted a joint discovery letter, but it exceeded the five-page limit in the Court’s standing order.
The Court struck the letter because it did not follow that page limit. It did not decide whether the deposition may occur. Instead, the Court said supporting evidence was likely needed and allowed the parties to submit a replacement joint letter of up to eight pages by April 30, 2025, if they could not resolve the dispute.
Judge Cisneros also gave preliminary guidance: the Court would consider, but not automatically require, the usual limits on depositions of senior executives; would likely reject a deposition based only on speculation; and was not inclined to allow a document request after previously denying Plaintiffs’ untimely request to add Goeckeler as a document custodian.
The detailed version
- In re Sandisk SSDS Litigation · No. 3:23-cv-04152
- Cisneros
- Apr. 21, 2025
Background
The parties filed a joint discovery letter on April 21, 2025, concerning whether Plaintiffs should be allowed to depose SanDisk LLC’s CEO, David Goeckeler. The letter exceeded the five-page limit in the Court’s standing order.
The Court’s action
The Court struck the joint letter for failure to comply with the page limit. The Court also made a preliminary determination that evidence would likely be needed to resolve the deposition dispute. If the parties could not resolve the matter themselves, the Court permitted them to file a replacement joint letter of no more than eight pages, excluding signatures, by April 30, 2025. The replacement could include declarations and other relevant evidence.
Guidance about the proposed deposition
The Court stated that it would not take a rigid approach to the so-called apex doctrine, which concerns limits on questioning a company’s highest-ranking executives. The Court said that exhaustion of other witnesses and the executive’s unique knowledge could be relevant, but would not impose automatic requirements based on those considerations alone. It nevertheless recognized that deposing a large company’s chief executive ordinarily creates a substantial burden.
The Court also stated that Plaintiffs’ description of the evidence suggested there was little direct evidence of Goeckeler’s involvement in the events at issue. Because fact discovery was nearing its close, the Court said it was unlikely to permit the deposition based only on speculation about his possible involvement or knowledge. The Court further stated that, if Plaintiffs’ deposition notice sought documents, it was not inclined to allow that request after previously denying Plaintiffs’ untimely request to add Goeckeler as a document custodian.
Disposition
The Court struck the joint discovery letter. It did not finally rule on whether Plaintiffs may depose Goeckeler, and the order does not resolve the underlying discovery dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.