ELITE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Plaintiff, v. ANCHOR SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., et al., Defendants Case No. 20-cv-06846-EJD (NC) United States District Court, N.D. California Signed March 16, 2021 Filed March 17, 2021 Counsel John David van Loben Sels, Fish & Tsang LLP, Matthew James Carl Lusich, Fish IP Law LLP, Redwood City, CA, for Plaintiff. Thomas Edward Wallerstein, Amit Rana, Antonia Isabella Stabile, William Andrew Hector, Venable LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants Anchor Semiconductor, Inc., Chenmin Hu. Mary Ann Novak, Hilgers Graben PLLC, Lincoln, NE, for Defendant Lin Chin-Hsen. Cousins, Nathanael M., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO SUPPLEMENT INITIAL DISCLOSURES *1 Plaintiff Elite Semiconductor, Inc. filed a motion to compel Defendants Anchor Semiconductor, Inc. and Chenmin Hu to supplement their initial disclosures. See ECF 52. Elite contends that Anchor and Hu failed to sufficiently identify the Anchor employees which it knows must have discoverable information. Id. at 1. Elite also claims Anchor and Hu failed to produce or identify relevant documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things they have in their possession, custody or control that relate to their claims and defenses. Id. at 2. Meanwhile, Anchor claims that Elite broadly “demands disclosure of anyone who has ever worked for Anchor, and virtually every document Anchor has generated in the past decade.” ECF 52 at 2. Anchor and Hu's initial disclosures do not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(i)–(ii). See ECF 54, 54-1. After evaluating the motion, the Court GRANTS Elite's motion to compel, and ORDERS Anchor and Hu to supplement their initial disclosures in compliance with this order and with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i)–(ii). I. BACKGROUND This discovery dispute arises out of Elite's claims against Defendants alleging trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract. On March 4, 2021, Elite filed a motion to compel Anchor and Hu to supplement their initial disclosures. See ECF 52. That same day, the Court ordered Anchor and Hu to file their initial disclosures by March 8, 2021. ECF 53. On March 5, 2021, Anchor and Hu filed their initial disclosures. See ECF 54. II. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) governs initial disclosures. “Compliance with Rule 26’s disclosure requirements is ‘mandatory.’ ” Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 768 F.3d 843, 862 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay, 742 F.3d 860, 865 (9th Cir. 2014)). Without awaiting a discovery request, parties are mandated to provide each other “the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that information” and “a copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i)-(ii). Rule 26(e)(1)(A) requires parties to supplement their prior disclosures “in a timely manner” when “the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” Brown v. Wal-Mart Store, Inc., No. 09-CV-03339-EJD, 2018 WL 2011935, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2018). Rule 26(e) establishes an “ongoing duty to supplement or correct prior disclosures or discovery responses” without the need for a request from another party. 8A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2048 (3d ed. 2017). III. DISCUSSION *2 Elite argues that Anchor failed to sufficiently identify individuals and relevant documents pursuant to Rule 26(a), while Anchor argues that compliance with Elite's request would only “increase the expense of this litigation.” ECF 52 at 3. To determine whether Anchor and Hu must supplement their initial disclosures in compliance with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i)–(ii), the Court will first evaluate the names of the individuals who are likely to have discoverable information, their contact information, if available, and the subjects of their information. Second, the Court will assess the description of the documents initially disclosed by category and location. A. Initial Disclosure of Individuals’ Names, Contact Information, and Subjects of Discoverable Information Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i), Anchor and Hu's initial disclosures included a chart disclosing the individual names, “Iyun Kevin Lu,” “Aldrich Lin,” “Chin Hsen-Lin,” and “Dr. Chenmin Hu.” See ECF 54-1 at 1–2. Anchor and Hu further included, “Current and former employees of Elite Semiconductor, Inc.,” “one or more additional employees of Anchor Semiconductor, Inc.,” “Persons identified by Elite Semiconductor, Inc. in its initial disclosures,” and “Persons identified by other Defendants in their initial disclosures” as placeholders for any possible unidentified individuals. Id. Here, however, such placeholders are insufficient because they must identify individuals by name as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i). Additionally, the information provided by Anchor and Hu under the section “contact information” is only satisfactory if the addresses and telephone numbers of “Iyun Kevin Lu” and “Aldrich Lin” were not known to Anchor and Hu at the time the initial disclosures were produced. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). Further, Anchor and Hu describe the identified individuals’ subjects of information as “Elite Semiconductor, Inc.’s allegations,” “Chin Hsen-Lin's employment at Elite Semiconductor, Inc.,” and “Knowledge of Defendant Anchor Semiconductor, Inc.” Id. Here, the identifications only provide Elite with a vague explanation of the subjects of information, and these do not serve the purpose of initially disclosing information to move forward in the discovery process. Thus, Anchor and Hu's initial disclosures do not comply with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i). B. Initial Disclosure of Documents Described by Category and Location A party must provide an opposing party with “a copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents ... the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii). Here, Anchor and Hu provided the category “Employment records of Anchor Semiconductor, Inc.” without adding the location of the likely discoverable documents or information Anchor and Hu may use to support their claims or defenses. Providing a general description of a document does not comply with Rule 26(a)’s specificity requirement. Rule 26(a) requires a modest level of specificity that should be sufficient to “enable opposing parties (1) to make an informed decision concerning which documents might need to be examined, at least initially, and (2) to frame their document requests in a manner likely to avoid squabbles resulting from the wording of the requests.” Song v. Drenberg, No. 18-CV-06283-LHK (VKD), 2019 WL 1949785, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2019); see, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee's notes to 1993 amendments, subdivision (a), paragraph (1). Here, Anchor and Hu generally describe their documents and do not provide the modest level of specificity necessary for Elite to make an informed decision over which employment records should be examined, or which employment records they should request during discovery. Thus, Anchor and Hu's initial disclosures do not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(ii). *3 Accordingly, Anchor and Hu must supplement their initial disclosures to remedy the defects outlined in this Order. IV. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Court ORDERS Anchor and Hu to serve supplemental initial disclosures by March 30, 2021, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i)–(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Anchor and Hu must identify witnesses by name and provide a level of specificity for the documents identified, sufficient for Elite to make an informed decision over which documents must be examined and how to specifically tailor discovery requests. IT IS SO ORDERED.