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. 107
Netgear has a right to know the specific conduct underlying Choice’s false advertis-
ing counterclaim, but RFPs 35–38 may not be the best means to obtain this information.
Choice alleges that Netgear’s Amazon listings include false or misleading information. Dkt.
67 ¶¶ 131–35. Through RFPs 35–38, Netgear has effectively asked Choice to produce those
listings. See Dkt. 107-1. Crucially, however, it’s unclear if Netgear’s Amazon listings are in
Choice’s “possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). Perhaps for this reason,
Choice has objected in part to these RFPs by (rightly) asserting that “it is not obligated to
create documents in response to document requests.” Dkt. 107 at 3–4.
Putting aside the issue above, which very well may affect how many responsive doc-
uments Choice has, it’s undisputed that RFPs 35–38 seek relevant documents. Moreover,
Case 3:25-cv-02601-RS Document 122 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Choice says it produced responsive documents and may produce more after Netgear supple-
ments its own production. See id. at 3–4. In response, Netgear lodges two complaints, both
of which have merit.
First, Netgear notes that Choice “does not provide Bates numbers for any . . . docu-
ment [produced in response to RFPs 35–38], and does not state where in its production the
allegedly responsive [documents] . . . can be found.” Id. at 3. “A bare assertion that docu-
ments ‘were produced’ is not a substitute for identifying what was produced and where,” as
Netgear notes. Id. Accordingly, by October 22, 2026, Choice must identify with Bates num-
bers all documents it has produced that are responsive to RFPs 35–38.
Second, Netgear doesn’t understand why Choice needs Netgear to supplement its
production before Choice produces any remaining responsive documents. The Court doesn’t
understand either. Choice is the party that pleaded a false-advertising counterclaim, and
RFPs 35–38 seeks documents relevant to that claim. As Netgear correctly notes, “Choice
cannot condition its compliance with Rule 34 on first obtaining discovery from the party it
has accused.” Id. If Choice has any additional documents in its possession, custody, or con-
trol that are responsive to RFPs 35–38, it must produce them by October 22, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02601-RS Document 122 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>