Netgear, Inc. v. Choice Electronics Inc.

Background

Netgear asked the court to compel Choice to supplement its responses to numerous interrogatories (written questions, called “ROGs” in the order) and requests for production (requests for documents or other materials, called “RFPs”). The requests were presented in two joint statements. The court found that the parties had not spent enough time discussing the discovery disputes before asking for judicial intervention. It also noted that, for some requests, the parties apparently had not met and conferred at all.

Guidance on the Disputes

The court provided guidance even though it required further discussions before considering additional joint statements:

- Netgear’s trademark claim concerns all Netgear products that Choice sold. The products listed in the complaint were illustrative, so Netgear did not have to limit discovery to those specifically identified products. - For the Netgear products at issue, the complete chain of custody was relevant because it could support Netgear’s allegations that Choice sold products that were liquidated, used, stolen, intended for use outside the United States, or non-genuine. If Choice lacked information needed to determine the complete chain of custody, it had to say so; it could not simply refuse to produce chain-of-custody information. - Discovery about Choice’s sale of products that were not Netgear products did not appear proportional to the needs of the case. If Netgear sought that discovery, it would need to explain more clearly why it was relevant and proportional. - Choice’s interrogatory answers could not merely refer to its pleadings. An interrogatory answer should be complete on its own.

Order

By September 15, 2026, the parties were ordered to meet and confer further, in person or by videoconference, about the disputed interrogatories and document requests. The court required a genuine effort to compromise and resolve the disputes, rather than a pro forma session. If the disputes remained unresolved, the parties could file additional joint statements. The court also reminded them that each joint statement should address only one issue or a few closely related issues, and that documents filed with a joint statement should be attached and numbered separately rather than combined into one PDF exhibit.

The order did not grant or deny Netgear’s request to compel supplemental discovery. It required further meet-and-confer efforts before the court would consider additional joint statements.