GoDaddy.com LLC v. RPost Communications Limited et al

Filing 185

ORDER granting 174 RPost's Motion to Strike Notice of Filing Supplemental Exhibits 3 and 4 to Plaintiff's Responsive Claim Construction Brief. The Clerk of Court shall strike the documents at (Doc. 171 , 172 , and 173 ) and leave th e documents at (Doc. 173 ) under seal. The Court will not consider GoDaddy's Supplemental Exhibits for purposes of claim construction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1 and 2, which GoDaddy moved to admit during the Markman Hearing, will not be admitted into evidence. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/27/15. (EJA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

GoDaddy.com, LLC,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-00126-PHX-JAT

RPost Communications Limited, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ (“RPost”) Motion to Strike Notice of

16

Filing Supplemental Exhibits 3 and 4 to Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief.

17

(Doc. 174). Plaintiff GoDaddy.com, LLC (“GoDaddy”) filed a response (Doc. 179) and

18

RPost filed a reply (Doc. 181). The Court now rules on the motion.

19

I.

Background

20

In the Court’s Rule 16 Scheduling Order, the Court set the following Markman

21

briefing deadlines: (1) RPost’s opening Markman brief was due January 9, 2015; (2)

22

GoDaddy’s responsive Markman brief was due February 9, 2015; and (3) RPost’s reply

23

brief was due February 23, 2015. (Doc. 76 at 2). There is no dispute that the parties’

24

original briefings (Docs. 114, 117, 119) timely met these deadlines.

25

On August 5, 2015, the Court set a Markman Hearing for October 22, 2015 and

26

ordered the parties to file a joint notice with the Court stating whether each party

27

intended to present extrinsic evidence at the Markman Hearing. (Doc. 153). On August

28

10, 2015, the parties filed a joint notice informing the Court that they did not intend to

1

present evidence beyond the patents-in-suit, the patents’ file histories, and other

2

documentary evidence that was submitted with the parties’ Markman briefs. (Doc. 154).

3

On October 9, 2015, GoDaddy filed a Notice of Filing Supplemental Exhibits 3

4

and 4 to Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (“Notice of Filing”).

5

(Doc. 171). In a separate, contemporaneous filing, GoDaddy lodged the proposed

6

exhibits in un-redacted format (“Supplemental Exhibits”). (Doc. 173).

7

On October 22, 2015, the Markman Hearing was held. See (Doc. 182). GoDaddy

8

included portions of the Supplemental Exhibits in its Markman Hearing PowerPoint

9

presentation, but did not orally discuss them. GoDaddy also sought to admit into

10

evidence Exhibits 1 and 2, which are un-redacted versions of the Supplemental Exhibits.

11

If the Court denies RPost’s pending motion to strike (Doc. 174), then it must determine

12

the admissibility of Exhibits 1 and 2.

13

II.

Analysis

14

RPost argues that GoDaddy’s Supplemental Exhibits should be stricken because

15

the Notice of Filing was untimely and the Supplemental Exhibits are irrelevant.

16

(Doc. 174). RPost notes that at least Supplemental Exhibit 3 was disclosed to GoDaddy

17

on November 4, 2014—nearly a full year before the date on which GoDaddy filed its

18

Notice of Filing. (Doc. 181). GoDaddy responds that “good cause” exists for the Court to

19

consider the Supplemental Exhibits because they directly relate to “newly asserted

20

positions” by RPost “on the scope of the patents-in-suit to be construed by the Court” in

21

an expert report provided to GoDaddy on August 10, 2015. (Doc. 179). Specifically,

22

GoDaddy argues that it was “impossible” to determine how RPost’s products “met

23

specific claim terms requiring ‘proof’” before receiving the expert report which described

24

in a “term-by-term analysis” how a commercial embodiment of the asserted patents,

25

RPost’s Registered Email, practices the patents. (Id. at 2–3).

26

In essence, GoDaddy attempts to amend its Responsive Claim Construction Brief

27

by introducing additional evidence to bolster its arguments. It is undisputed, however,

28

that GoDaddy filed its Notice of Filing over seven months after the Markman briefing

-2-

1

deadlines ended. Moreover, GoDaddy did not request the Court’s approval to amend its

2

Responsive Claim Construction Brief via supplemental exhibits, nor has it sought the

3

Court’s consent to amend the Rule 16 Scheduling Order as required by Federal Rule of

4

Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified

5

only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”).

6

In its briefing, GoDaddy asserts that “Exhibits 3 and 4 . . . directly support

7

GoDaddy’s Markman brief arguments that specific terms in RPost’s patents require

8

proving email transmission to a level of certainty beyond what RPost now conveniently

9

claims.” (Doc. 179 at 1) (first emphasis added). While this statement, if true, likely sets

10

forth an argument as to the relevance of the Supplemental Exhibits, it undermines

11

GoDaddy’s “good cause” argument. Namely, why would GoDaddy, which was at least in

12

possession of Supplemental Exhibit 3 at the time it filed its Responsive Claim

13

Construction Brief, not include Exhibit 3 as an exhibit at the time of filing if Exhibit 3

14

“directly supports” GoDaddy’s arguments in that brief? In its briefing on this motion,

15

GoDaddy does not contend that it was wholly unaware of the Supplemental Exhibits at

16

the time it filed its Responsive Claim Construction Brief. Rather, GoDaddy ostensibly

17

argues that it was oblivious as to the relevance of the Supplemental Exhibits at the time

18

of filing. Such an argument does not result in a finding of “good cause.”

19

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the fact that RPost’s expert stated

20

that a particular commercial embodiment of a patent practices certain aspects of the

21

patent is of no moment to the Court’s construction of the patent’s claim terms. The

22

parties agreed that they would not introduce extrinsic evidence at the Markman Hearing

23

beyond the patents-in-suit, the patents’ file histories, and demonstrative evidence

24

included in the parties’ Markman briefings. (Doc. 154). The parties did not state that

25

expert testimony would be offered. (Id.) Thus, because RPost already made its claim

26

construction arguments in its Opening Brief (Doc. 115) and Reply Brief (Doc. 119), the

27

testimony of RPost’s expert has no bearing on the Court’s construction of the claim

28

terms. Consequently, for purposes of the Court’s construction of the patents’ claim terms,

-3-

1

evidence that allegedly derives its relevance from an expert report that itself will not be

2

considered during claim construction is irrelevant.

3

Finally, the Court agrees with RPost that it was not “impossible” for GoDaddy to

4

determine how RPost’s Registered Email product met certain limitations of the asserted

5

patents before the initial expert disclosure deadline. In response to GoDaddy’s

6

interrogatory request for identification of all RPost products that embodied or practiced

7

the patents-in-suit, RPost identified—after a litany of objections—its Registered Email

8

product. (Doc. 179-1 at 6). GoDaddy, however, did not attempt any further discovery on

9

how the Registered Email product practiced certain limitations of the asserted patents.1

10

III.

Conclusion

11

Based on the foregoing reasons,

12

IT IS ORDERED that RPost’s Motion to Strike Notice of Filing Supplemental

13

Exhibits 3 and 4 to Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Doc. 174) is

14

granted. The Clerk of Court shall strike the documents at Docket 171, 172, and 173 and

15

leave the documents at Docket 173 under seal. The Court will not consider GoDaddy’s

16

Supplemental Exhibits for purposes of claim construction.

17
18
19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1 and 2, which GoDaddy moved to
admit during the Markman Hearing, will not be admitted into evidence.
Dated this 27th day of October, 2015.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court also notes that RPost disclosed the expert report to GoDaddy nearly
two months before GoDaddy filed its Notice of Filing. GoDaddy does not explain the two
month time period, but such a long gap hardly suggests GoDaddy acted diligently,
particularly when GoDaddy possessed at least Exhibit 3 since November 4, 2014. See
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Unlike Rule
15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking to
interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good
cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”).
-4-