In a short decision, Magistrate Judge Grewal reminded patent litigants in Corning Optical Comm'ns Wireless Ltd. v. Solid, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-03750-PSG (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2015) that, in order to resolve discovery disputes, the Court needs to have a sense of the potential damages. The magistrate judge said that the general practice of parties in patent litigations to fail to provide a calculation of damages as part of their Rule 26 disclosures made it difficult to assess proportionality in adjudicating discovery disputes. The magistrate judge said that, while a patent litigant may not be able to provide a full calculation of damages at the beginning of the litigation, telling their opponent to "wait until we serve our expert report" is an insufficient disclosure. Therefore, the Court granted the defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to supplement its damages disclosures with information about the amount of damages, the apportionment of damages among the patents, the theories regarding any lost profit and reasonable royalty claims, and the witnesses and documents upon which plaintiff intends to use to support its damages claims.