Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 49

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

IMPLICIT NETWORKS INC,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 10-03746 SI

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
Defendant.

/

13
14
15

Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant (“HP”) to: (1) immediately

16

produce its “full document production” within 30 days; (2) answer interrogatories 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13

17

within 30 days; and (3) produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on all “accused products” within 15 days. See

18

Motion to Compel [Docket No. 43]. Implicit argues that HP has stonewalled discovery, refusing to

19

produce a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent and failing to provide meaningful discovery. Id. at 2-3.

20

HP responds to the motion to compel arguing that any delays in discovery, and objections made,

21

are the result of Implicit’s deficient Patent L.R. 3-1 disclosures. HP asserts that Implicit’s asserted

22

claims and infringement contentions, served on March 25, 2011, fail to provide sufficient notice to HP

23

of the accused instrumentalities, particularly where each limitation of each asserted claim is found

24

within each accused instrumentality. Response to Motion to Compel [Docket No. 46]. Without more

25

specific disclosures, HP argues that the discovery sought was impermissibly overbroad, including

26

Implicit’s request that HP produce a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent to discuss all “accused instrumentalities.”

27

Id. at 2. HP notes that Implicit has agreed to provide amended contentions on May 10, 2011, and argues

28

that it will be able to produce more complete discovery after that point.

1

HP, however, also seeks an amended date for service of its Patent L.R. 3-3 and 3-4 disclosures;

2

specifically allowing HP until July 22, 2011 to serve its invalidity contention disclosures in light of

3

Implicit’s amendment of its contention disclosures and because Implicit has already agreed to allow

4

defendants in the other related cases Implicit is litigating (e.g., F5, Juniper Networks and Cisco Systems)

5

to file their invalidity contentions on July 22, 2011. Implicit objects to HP’s request for extra time

6

because HP has, without good cause, refused to provide meaningful discovery to date.
As far as the Court knows, Implicit provided HP with its amended asserted claims and

8

infringement contentions on May 10, 2011. As far as the Court knows, HP produced a Rule 30(b)(6)

9

deponent on May 12, 2011. Now that HP has received what it claims was lacking – Implicit’s amended

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

asserted claims and infringement contentions – HP should be able to fully comply with the outstanding

11

discovery requests in a timely manner.

12

As such, the Court orders as follows:

13

(1)

HP shall produce responsive documents within 45 days of this Order. The Court,

14

however, does not rule on any particular objections that HP has or may still assert related

15

to Implicit’s amended asserted claims and infringement contentions.

16

(2)

HP shall provide answers to interrogatories 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 within 30 days of this

17

Order. The Court, however, does not rule on any particular objections that HP has or

18

may still assert related to Implicit’s amended asserted claims and infringement

19

contentions.

20

(3)

Implicit’s request to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify as to all accused

21

instrumentalities appears to be moot. If the parties have any continuing disputes over

22

HP’s production of Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses in light of the amended asserted claims and

23

infringement contentions, they may submit those to the Court for determination.

24
25
26
27

(4)

HP’s request for additional time to provide its Patent L.R. 3-3 and 3-4 disclosures is
granted in part. HP shall have until June 30, 2011 to provide its disclosures.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 13, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

28
2