Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. Dong

Background

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. sued former employees Lin Sheng and Wei Dong and their company, Meraki Integrated Circuit (Shenzen) Technology, Inc. The cases were consolidated. Monolithic alleges that the former employees took its confidential information, used it to obtain patents and develop semiconductor products, and founded Meraki. The remaining claim against Sheng and Dong is for breach of their employment contracts based on alleged misappropriation of confidential information. The claims against Meraki are for patent infringement, trade-secret theft, tortious interference, and unfair competition.

The order resolves four discovery disputes: Meraki’s responses to interrogatories 6–9; Sheng’s and Dong’s responses to interrogatories 15 and 17; proposed depositions of Monolithic CEO Michael Hsing and General Counsel Saria Tseng; and the location of Sheng’s and Dong’s depositions.

Interrogatories

The court ordered Meraki to answer interrogatories 6–9. Meraki objected only that the interrogatories were premature contention interrogatories—questions seeking a party’s position about the facts or law. The court held that they were not premature because discovery was substantially advanced, claim construction had occurred, amended infringement contentions had been served, and a settlement conference was scheduled. The court directed the parties to schedule Monolithic’s depositions first, give Meraki one week to answer, and then schedule Meraki’s depositions. The defendants may amend their contention interrogatories one week after expert disclosures.

The court also required Sheng and Dong to amend their responses to interrogatories 15 and 17. Their answers did not sufficiently identify which Monolithic files were placed on their external drives, which files remained when they left Monolithic, or whether, how, and when those files were deleted or removed. The court acknowledged that the defendants may have adequately searched available devices, but held that Monolithic was entitled to direct answers and to test those answers through depositions. The parties also must confer about any burden created by newer interrogatories.

Michael Hsing deposition

The defendants sought to depose Hsing about an allegation that, after hiring Sheng, he pressured her to disclose confidential and trade-secret information belonging to her former employer, Texas Instruments. The court did not allow the deposition immediately. If Sheng corroborates the allegation in her deposition, the defendants may depose Hsing on that topic at the end of discovery for no more than 4.5 hours. The deposition may include limited questions about the hiring process when needed to provide context for Hsing’s interactions with Sheng about the Texas Instruments information. The parties may submit another discovery letter if later discovery changes the situation.

Saria Tseng deposition

The court denied the defendants’ request to depose Tseng, Monolithic’s vice president, general counsel, corporate secretary, and vice president of strategic corporate development. The proposed topics included Monolithic’s confidentiality practices and the circumstances surrounding Sheng’s leave of absence and resignation. The court concluded that the information was available from other sources and that Tseng’s impressions about her conversations with Sheng were protected attorney work product and were not crucial to the defendants’ preparation of their case.

Deposition location

The court ruled that Sheng’s and Dong’s depositions may be conducted remotely or in person in Macau or Hong Kong. It did not require them to travel to the United States. The court found that in-person depositions were appropriate because Monolithic wanted to assess credibility and review extensive documents, but concluded that the burdens and equities did not favor depositions in the United States given the former employees’ business and family responsibilities and their residence and work in China. The court noted that the parties could agree to another location.

Disposition

The order resolved the discovery disputes identified in Electronic Case Filing entries 132, 134, 136, and 142. Judge Laurel Beeler signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge on January 20, 2023.