NETGEAR, Inc. v. Choice Electronics Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NETGEAR, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHOICE ELECTRONICS INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-02601-RS (AGT)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 105
The Court grants in part and denies in part Netgear’s request to compel Choice to
produce documents responsive to RFPs 56, 61, 62, 74, and 81.
* * *
The Court grants Netgear’s request as to RFPs 56 and 74.
RFP 56: All Documents and Communications relating to any actions
taken by Amazon or any other third party in response to the allegedly
defamatory statements.
Dkt. 105-1 at 8.
The “allegedly defamatory statements” are cabined in by the statements identified in
Choice’s defamation counterclaim, wherein Choice alleges that Netgear defamed Choice by
falsely reporting to Amazon that Choice sold stolen Netgear products. See Dkt. 105 at 1
(citing Dkt. 67 ¶¶ 55–59, 158–201). All documents and communications relating to any ac-
tions taken by Amazon or any other third party in response to those statements are relevant
Case 3:25-cv-02601-RS Document 120 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 3

2
to the defamation counterclaim, and Choice hasn’t identified an undue burden of production.
RFP 74: All Documents reflecting Amazon’s reasons, bases, findings,
conclusions, determinations, or decisions regarding allegations that
You sold, possessed, offered for sale, fulfilled, stored, or distributed
stolen, diverted, improperly sourced, unauthorized, counterfeit, or oth-
erwise ineligible products.
Dkt. 105-2 at 7.
Amazon’s responses to allegations about Choice selling, inter alia, stolen and coun-
terfeited products are relevant to Choice’s counterclaims, even if the allegations don’t relate
to Netgear products. As Netgear notes, “[t]he requested documents will permit Netgear to
determine whether Amazon follows an escalating enforcement policy or whether the cumu-
lative effect of repeated complaints drove its decision” to suspend Choice’s sale of Netgear
products. Dkt. 105 at 3 (select capitalization omitted).
Choice worries about mini-trials and FRE 403 concerns related to complaints Ama-
zon has received about Choice from other, non-Netgear brands. Those worries can be ad-
dressed in motions in limine or at trial, but they don’t warrant restricting discovery concern-
ing complaints to Amazon about Choice.
The Court denies Netgear’s request to compel as to RFPs 61, 62, and 81.
RFP 61: All Documents and Communications relating to any disruption
of your relationship with Amazon or any other third party.
Dkt. 105-1 at 11.
RFP 61 is overbroad because the word “disruption” can cover all sorts of business or
logistical miscues, including minor matters like shipping issues, as Choice notes, dkt. 105 at
3, and Netgear hasn’t explained why documents relating to any disruption of Choice’s rela-
tionship with “any other third party” are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
Case 3:25-cv-02601-RS Document 120 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 3

3
RFP 62: All Communications between you and Amazon or any other
third party relating to any alleged disruption of your ability to sell
NETGEAR products.
Dkt. 105-1 at 12.
RFP 62 is narrower than RFP 61 because RFP 62 is limited to Netgear products, but
RFP 62 is also overbroad, again because of the breadth of possible “disruptions” and because
the request also extends to communications between Choice and “any other third party.”
RFP 81: All Documents concerning any allegation by Amazon, any
manufacturer, any retailer, any distributor, any marketplace, any in-
surer, any law-enforcement agency, or any third party that You sold,
possessed, offered for sale, fulfilled, stored, or distributed stolen, di-
verted, improperly sourced, unauthorized, counterfeit, or otherwise in-
eligible products.
Dkt. 105-2 at 13.
RFP 81’s lengthy list of third parties (e.g., “any manufacturer, any retailer, any dis-
tributor”), in conjunction with its lengthy list of responsive allegations (e.g., selling “stolen,
diverted, improperly sourced, unauthorized, counterfeit, or otherwise ineligible products”),
renders the request overbroad and disproportional to the needs of the case.
* * *
Choice must produce all documents in its possession, custody, or control responsive
to RFPs 56 and 74 by October 21, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02601-RS Document 120 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 3