Case Name: Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. v. Novinium, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 2016-1-CV-297468

On March 6, 2015, plaintiff Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Maxim”) entered into a Services and Goods Agreement (“Agreement”) with defendant Novinium, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Novinium”) in which Novinium would provide electrical engineering services to Maxim, including injecting and rejuvenating underground electrical feeder cables at Maxim’s fabrication plant. (See complaint, ¶ 12.) However, Novinium failed to accurately measure the length of the cables by 28%, and, in an attempt to complete the project on time, Novinium increased the injection pressure to 60 psi, double the maximum pressure provided by Novinium’s documented injection procedures. (See complaint, ¶¶ 17-20.) Moreover, Novinium reused ground clamps, improperly mixed or used defective injection fluids, and prematurely capped the cables being injected, all resulting in a massive power failure that shut down Maxim’s operations on March 27, 2015, caused damage to the integrated circuits (“ICs”) in fabrication, the fabrication equipment, and the cables, and resulted in lost sales due to an inability to meet the production deadlines of Maxim’s customers. (See complaint, ¶¶ 21-26.)

Despite their knowledge of the causes of cable failure, and that failure to remediate Novinium’s faulty work would result in future cable failures and damage to other Maxim property, Novinium failed to disclose this information to Maxim or take any action to remediate the known causes of the cable failure, and instead represented that the failure was caused by poor workmanship or a faulty cable at the failed connections, and that repairing those connections was sufficient to resolve the problem and prevent future cable failures. (See complaint, ¶ 27.) On March 29, 2015, the entire fabrication plant again shut down, resulting in additional damage to the cables and other Maxim property including chips in production. (See complaint, ¶ 28.) On April 21 and 22, 2015, Novinium’s CEO, Glen Bertini, admitted that: Novinium’s prior representations were false; the failures were caused by overpressurization of the injection fluid; the Novinium team should not have doubled the maximum injection pressure which violated Novinium’s own procedures; overpressurization causes a split on the cable seam in the location where each of the cables failed; the Novinium team lacked proper supervision and project management during the initial and subsequent remedial work; and Novinium needed to replace the entire cables to permanently fix the problems it created. (See complaint, ¶¶ 28-35.) Novinium was unable to cure its faulty services and products; thus, Maxim engaged another electrical vendor to replace all of the injected cables and all related work performed by Novinium. (See complaint, ¶ 40.) On July 11, 2016, Maxim filed a complaint against Novinium and Utilx Corporation, asserting causes of action for:

1) Negligence;
2) Negligent misrepresentation;
3) Defective design/failure to warn;
4) Negligent interference with prospective economic relations;
5) Breach of contract;
6) Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
7) Intentional interference with prospective economic relations; and,
8) Intentional misrepresentation.

On September 20, 2016, defendant Novinium propounded requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) on plaintiff Maxim regarding Maxim’s claimed damages. Maxim served responses consisting wholly of objections based on that the requests were duplicative of prior requests, vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, not relevant, seeking the disclosure of expert opinion, protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, and invading third party confidentiality and privacy rights. Maxim has produced over 3500 pages of documents in response to the subject RPDs. The parties exchanged emails in October and December 2017 through February 2018 and then in May 2018. On June 20, 2018, Novinium filed the instant motion to compel further responses to RPDs 77-80, 84-88, 92-94, 96-102. Novinium also requests monetary sanctions against Maxim.

RPDs 77-80, 84-88

RPDs 77-80, 84-88 request “any and all notes, videotapes, books, pamphlets, manuals, photographs, letters, e-mails, forms, notes, correspondences, records, reports, minutes of meeting, agreements, contracts, memoranda, studies, working papers, charts, graphs, indexes, data sheets, computer printouts, recording tapes, discs, transcription of any conversation or meeting, drawings, or any other writings as defined in Evidence Code section 250… reflecting, pertaining to, and/or supporting in any way the… facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis, including the quantities, characters, or symbols on which operations are performed by a computer, being stored and transmitted in the form of electrical signals and or recorded in magnetic, optical, or mechanical recording media… used in the graphs and/or charts depicted on” certain documents.

Novinium asserts that Maxim’s objections are boilerplate and generalized, and that without the requested documentation which relate to Maxim’s damages, it is unable to evaluate Maxim’s claims. Maxim contends that it has already produced a number of documents, and it is willing to search for additional documents, but that Novinium’s request is so broad that it is unable to know what else to produce. As the parties agree, it is a proper response to RPDs to object to the request. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210, subd. (a)(3).) The parties disagree as to the merit of Maxim’s objection based on overbreadth. Regardless, Maxim, in opposition, agrees to search for and produce certain documents showing the requirement of expedite fees. These documents should be produced. It appears that the parties may be able to resolve their differences if Novinium limits the scope of these RPDs, and Maxim agrees to provide a response indicating that it will comply with the particular demand, as limited by agreement. Parties’ counsel are ordered to appear at the hearing in person to meet and confer as to these RPDs. Parties’ counsel may not appear via Court Call.

RPDs 92-94

RPDs 92-94 seek documents regarding diesel fuel usage for generators, chemical cost, and expedited fees. In opposition, Maxim asserts that it has recently provided further documents. Accordingly, the motion to compel a further response to RPDs 92-94 is MOOT.

RPDs 96-102

RPDs 96-102 seek “any and all notes, videotapes, books, pamphlets, manuals, photographs, letters, e-mails, forms, notes, correspondences, records, reports, minutes of meeting, agreements, contracts, memoranda, studies, working papers, charts, graphs, indexes, data sheets, computer printouts, recording tapes, discs, transcription of any conversation or meeting, drawings, or any other writings as defined in Evidence Code section 250” regarding or evidencing unused wages, lost labor costs, labor costs without output, lost revenue and profits, and process shut-down costs, as to Maxim’s claims for damages. Like as to RPDs 77-80, 84-88, the parties disagree as to the merit of Maxim’s objection based on overbreadth. These RPDs are at least more particularized. Regardless, it appears that parties may be able to resolve their differences if Novinium limits the scope of these RPDs, and Maxim agrees to provide a response indicating that it will comply with the particular demand, as limited by agreement. Parties’ counsel are ordered to appear at the hearing in person to meet and confer as to these RPDs.