Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.
Filing
145
ORDER RE IMPLICIT'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL FINANCIAL INFORMATION 136 141 143 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/16/2012)
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 SECOND
MOTION TO COMPEL FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
Plaintiff,
v.
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant.
/
11
12
Currently before the Court is plaintiff Implicit’s second motion to compel Juniper to produce
13
financial information. [Docket No. 136]. In Implicit’s prior motion, Implicit argued that Juniper should
14
provide supplemental interrogatory responses explaining how Juniper calculated a revenue summary
15
provided to Implicit and identifying revenues from sales of products and services for the Accused
16
Products and any products that “work with” or are “related to” the Accused Products. Juniper opposed,
17
arguing that its prior responses were sufficient. On July 23, 2012, the Court ordered Juniper to provide
18
supplemental answers to two interrogatories, which were significantly narrowed by the Court. See
19
Docket No. 120. The Court indicated that, following the production of the supplemental responses,
20
Implicit could move to compel further information regarding revenue for particular non-Accused
21
Products or non-accused components that had been withheld, as long as that discovery is necessary for
22
Implicit’s damages analysis. Id.
23
Implicit now moves for supplemental revenue information regarding non-accused components
24
necessary for its damage analysis, and asks the Court for additional time to produce its expert damages
25
report. Specifically, Implicit contends that Juniper provided revenue for only the base SRX Gateway
26
“chassis” – which is an Accused Product – but not revenue on components which Implicit contends
27
“must” be integrated into a customer’s network in order for the SRX Gateway to function. Juniper does
28
not contest this characterization, but argues that it need not report revenue for components sold with the
1
SRX Gateway “chassis” because the components were not identified as “Accused Products” by Implicit.
2
The Court GRANTS the motion to compel as follows: Juniper shall provide supplemental
3
interrogatory responses which include revenue figures for all components that Juniper lists or offers as
4
part of the accused SRX Gateway products. See Plaintiff’s 4/6/2012 Amended Disclosure, Lines 31-40.
5
These supplemental interrogatory responses shall be provided within ten (10) days of the date of this
6
Order and Implicit may serve a revised damages report within fourteen (14) days after the service of the
7
supplemental interrogatory responses.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Dated: August 16, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?