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. 106
By October 30, 2026, Choice must produce:
(1) all invoices and underlying purchase documentation supporting
Choice’s acquisition of the 139 EAX15 units and 19 CM2050V units
identified in Choice’s sales data, or a verified response confirming that
no such documentation exists and explaining the basis for that repre-
sentation; (2) the emails by which Supplier1 and Supplier2 transmitted
invoices to Choice [for Netgear products]; (3) credit card statements,
bank or account statements, and other payment records evidencing
amounts Choice paid to Supplier1 and Supplier2 for Netgear products;
and (4) all WhatsApp messages [between Choice and Supplier1 or Sup-
plier2 concerning the acquisition, sourcing, or condition of Netgear
products].
Dkt. 106 at 3; see also id. at 1.
This discovery all relates to the origin and genuineness of the Netgear products sold
by Choice, and those issues are relevant to Choice’s first-sale affirmative defense to trade-
mark infringement. See Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc. v. Kraff’s Men’s Wear Co., 2014 WL
Case 3:25-cv-02601-RS Document 121 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 2

2
7777762, at *8 (D. Or. Nov. 21, 2014) (“[A]ssertion of the first sale doctrine places supplier
information within the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1).”); Coty Inc. v. C Lenu, Inc.,
2010 WL 5392887, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2010) (explaining that to rebut a defendant’s
first-sale defense, the plaintiff may need “to trace the source” of the products sold by the
defendant to determine their origin and genuineness); Netgear, Inc. v. Choice Elecs., Inc.,
No. 26-cv-02358-ES-AME, Dkt. 22 at 5–6 (D.N.J. Sept. 4, 2026) (granting Netgear’s motion
to compel a Choice supplier to produce the “Supplier’s invoices between Amazon.com and
Supplier, credit card or account statements showing amounts paid for the NETGEAR prod-
ucts, and WhatsApp messages between Supplier and Choice Electronics;” “[b]y raising the
First Sale Doctrine, Choice Electronics put at issue documents concerning its supply chain
of NETGEAR products”).1
Choice hasn’t identified an undue burden that will result from producing this discov-
ery. Nor has Choice established that Netgear’s request to compel is untimely. Although the
parties first met and conferred about Netgear’s discovery requests last year, Netgear wasn’t
required to seek Court intervention then and timely moved to compel on the last day for
filing fact-discovery joint statements. See Dkts. 102 at 1, 106.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
1 The discovery compelled here isn’t unnecessarily duplicative of the discovery compelled
in the New Jersey subpoena matter. As Netgear notes, “Choice has an independent obligation
to search for and produce responsive communications . . . , and Choice’s production may
capture communications that Supplier1 no longer possesses . . . .” Dkt. 106 at 2.
Case 3:25-cv-02601-RS Document 121 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 2