Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.
Filing
137
ORDER RE IMPLICIT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS AND A DEPOSITION WITNESS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/6/2012)
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
No. C 10-04234 SI
IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC.,
ORDER RE IMPLICIT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DOCUMENTS AND A
DEPOSITION WITNESS
Plaintiff,
v.
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant.
/
11
12
Currently before the Court is plaintiff Implicit’s motion to compel Juniper to produce documents
13
and a deposition witness. [Docket No. 125]. Implicit contends that Juniper’s production of documents
14
to date, in response to Document Requests Nos. 1 and 22, is deficient with respect to documents that
15
would show how Juniper’s customers configure their Juniper products. In particular, Implicit complains
16
that Juniper has not provided a complete production of documents related to customer support, including
17
“cases and trouble tickets” reported to JTAC [Juniper’s support group] and various reports received by
18
JTAC managers. Docket No. 125 at 1-2. Implicit argues that Juniper agreed to search for responsive
19
documents, but reneged on an agreement to produce the JTAC database, because of the size of the
20
production. As a compromise, Implicit argues the Court should order Juniper to produce documents in
21
the JTAC database for Juniper’s 10 largest U.S. customers.
22
Juniper responds that it has produced documents, including supplemental productions including
23
documents from the JTAC database. Juniper, however, does not contend that it has produced all
24
responsive documents and admits that it has not produced the full JTAC database, because that database
25
contains roughly 4 to 5 terabytes of data. Juniper does not explain what portion of the database has been
26
produced and why, but argues that Implicit’s motion to compel should be denied because Implicit has
27
failed to argue that there are any “specific areas” of the JTAC database that were not produced but
28
should have been. Docket Nos. 126, 132. Juniper also argues the motion to compel is moot because
1
Juniper agreed to continue to search for unspecified “additional documents.” Finally, Juniper argues
2
that Implicit’s proposed compromise is no compromise at all because the 10 largest Juniper customers
3
account for 80% of the documents in the massive JTAC database. Docket Nos. 130, 133.
The Court finds that Juniper has not demonstrated reasonable compliance with Implicit’s
5
document requests regarding the JTAC documents at issue. Juniper has not explained what it has
6
produced, what it has withheld, and why. Neither has Juniper demonstrated that the information sought
7
and not yet produced from the JTAC database is irrelevant or duplicative of other productions.
8
However, the Court recognizes the burden associated with producing 4 to 5 terabytes of data. Therefore,
9
the Court orders that Juniper shall produce all JTAC documents for its two largest United States
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
4
customers. If, after reviewing the supplemental production made pursuant to this Order, Implicit
11
believes it needs additional JTAC documents, it may seek relief from the Court.
12
Implicit also contends that Juniper should be required to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) person most
13
knowledgeable witness about customer sales and service. Implicit complains that Juniper refused to
14
produce a witness with enough knowledge on this subject matter and instead produced Juniper’s Chief
15
Technical Officer Oliver Tavakoli, who was unable to answer specific questions. Juniper responds that
16
Mr. Tavakoli was fully able to answer most of Implicit’s questions under the broad range of Rule
17
30(b)(6) topics noticed and that if Implicit wanted more specific testimony, it should have noticed
18
individual depositions but did not do so. The Court orders that Juniper produce a witness to testify
19
about what Juniper does specifically for customers, to demonstrate, implement and service
20
Juniper’s products, including configuration, for Juniper’s two largest United States customers.
21
The documents required to be produced shall be produced within fourteen (14) days of the
22
date of this Order and the deponent shall be produced within twenty one (21) days of the date of
23
this Order.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
Dated: August 6, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?