Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. et al

Filing 198

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 183 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 4. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

FINJAN, INC.,

Case No. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG (HRL)

Plaintiff,
13

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 4

v.
14
15
16
17

PROOFPOINT, INC. and ARMORIZE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 183

Defendants.
Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (Finjan) sues for alleged infringement of patents pertaining to internet

18

security. In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 4, Finjan seeks an order compelling

19

defendants to provide supplemental responses to Interrogatories 4 and 5 and to produce additional

20
21
22
23

documents in response to Requests for Production 14, 21, and 112. The matter is deemed suitable
for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the parties’
respective positions, this court grants Finjan’s request in part and denies it in part.
The discovery requests at issue seek sales and revenue information for the accused
products as follows:

24
25
26
27
28

Interrogatory 4:
“Describe in detail the revenue, sales, pricing, costs, gross profits,
net profits, and market share of each of the accused instrumentalities from the year 2013 to
the present, including but not limited to identifying on a monthly, quarterly, and annual
basis the gross and net revenues and gross and net profits generated by each of the accused
instrumentalities, as well as the costs and expenses incurred by [defendants] in generating
such revenue and profits.”

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Interrogatory 5:
“From the filing date of the Complaint to the present, separately
identify the number of software subscriptions, appliances, licenses, seats, and upgrades for
each release or version of the Accused Instrumentalities and the sales price and revenues
associated with those subscriptions, appliance, licenses, seats and upgrades.”
Request for Production 14: “All documents, communications, or things relating to any
sales or revenue generated from each of the accused instrumentalities from the year 2013
to the present.”
Request for Production 21: “Summaries of the revenue, sales, pricing, costs, gross
profits, net profits, and market share of each of the accused instrumentalities from the year
2013 to the present.”
Request for Production 112: “Documents sufficient to show the number of accused
instrumentalities sold from year 2013 to the present.”
The present discovery dispute arises from the following chronology of events:

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

On January 15, 2015, defendants produced financial information re the accused products

12

for 2008 through the third quarter of 2014, which they say was the most current information

13

available at that time. This production included bookings data and general ledger data, and

14

defendants represent that this information comprises the entirety of the data kept for sales and

15

revenues of the accused products, including the Proofpoint Enterprise Protection (PEP) product.

16

That same day, defendants supplemented their responses to Interrogatories 4 and 5 by identifying

17

the production numbers of the general ledger spreadsheets produced to plaintiff, stating that

18

responsive information may be ascertained from those documents.

19

On August 7, 2015, defendants further supplemented their interrogatory responses to

20

include a reference to their SEC filings, as well as a chart defining 26 descriptions and acronyms

21

in the produced financial spreadsheets.

22
23
24
25
26

On August 21, 2015, defendants say they produced updated bookings information for the
last three quarters.
On August 25, 2015, Finjan deposed Paul Auvil, defendants’ Chief Financial Officer and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) witness on financial information.
On September 2, 2015, defendants supplemented their interrogatory responses again, this

27

time citing the updated bookings documents produced on August 21 and incorporating by

28

reference Auvil’s deposition testimony.
2

1

Defendants say that they recently discovered that a single line item for a non-accused

2

functionality in PEP inadvertently was left out of their prior production. Defendants represent that

3

this information will have been produced to plaintiff by September 25, 2015 (i.e., the day after this

4

DDJR was filed).

5

Finjan now argues that defendants’ interrogatory responses are deficient because the

6

referenced spreadsheets contain information that plaintiff does not understand and which can only

7

be explained by defendants. Plaintiff also claims that defendants have not identified the number of

8

subscriptions sold in response to Interrogatory 5. As for documents, Finjan says that defendants

9

agreed to produce updated general ledger data for the last three quarters, but still have not done so.
Additionally, Finjan believes that defendants have withheld certain revenue information. It says

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

this is so because data in defendants’ general ledger documents is inconsistent with information

12

reported to the SEC and information contained in an investor presentation.

13

Defendants maintain that they have provided sufficient information for plaintiff to properly

14

review and analyze their spreadsheets. They further contend that plaintiff’s assertions about

15

inconsistencies in their financial documents are unsubstantiated and misguided and that, other than

16

the previously omitted PEP data and the agreed-upon updated general ledger data, defendants have

17

provided Finjan with their public filings and internal financial data and reporting for all accused

18

products.

19

A.

20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) permits a party to respond to an interrogatory by referring to business

Interrogatories 4 and 5

21

records only “if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same

22

for either party . . ..” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). “A requesting party claiming an inappropriate use of

23

Rule 33(d) must make a prima facie showing that the use of Rule 33(d) is somehow inadequate,

24

whether because the information is not fully contained in the documents or because it is too

25

difficult to extract.” Cefalu v. Holder, No. 12-0303 TEH (JSC), 2013 WL 4102160 at *3 (N.D.

26

Cal., Aug. 12, 2013) (citing RSI Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., No. 08-CV-3414, 2012 WL

27

3095396, at *1 (N.D.Cal. July 30, 2012)). “The burden then shifts to the responding party to show

28

that ‘(1) a review of the documents will actually reveal answers to the interrogatories; and (2) the
3

1

burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as

2

for the party served.’” Id. (quoting RSI Corp., 2012 WL 3095396, at *1).

3

Plaintiff claims that it cannot tell how the information contained in the spreadsheets is

4

responsive (if at all) to Interrogatories 4 and 5, but its arguments ring hollow in view of the

5

opportunity for discovery that Finjan has had with respect to these matters. Indeed, defendants say

6

that up until September 24, when Finjan sent a new draft of its portion of this DDJR, Finjan had

7

not identified a single description in the documents it did not understand, and did not mention any

8

actual discrepancy in defendants’ financial data, which now form the basis for relief. Finjan

9

argues that defendants’ assertion is “disingenuous,” but Finjan does not refute that, during meetand-confer negotiations, it did not specify the deficiencies now being alleged in the DDJR. Finjan

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

says only that during negotiations, it told defendants “that there were numerous columns in the

12

spreadsheets including some with ‘highlighting,’ and did not know how those were responsive to

13

Finjan’s Interrogatories.” (DDJR 4 at 5 n.2). Moreover, plaintiff has had the referenced

14

spreadsheets since January 2015. Finjan does not argue that it didn’t have a full and fair

15

opportunity to examine Auvil about the financial information produced by defendants. Nor does

16

plaintiff contend that Auvil was unprepared or not knowledgeable. Plaintiff emphasizes that the

17

spreadsheets contain over 100 columns of information. Even so, to the extent plaintiff claims that

18

it cannot understand the information presented in them, this court wonders why Finjan waited until

19

September 24, after the close of fact discovery, to specify the items Finjan believes require

20

clarification.

21

Nevertheless, this court will grant Finjan’s request for further clarification as to the

22

following items: Within 3 days from the date of this order, defendants’ shall serve a further

23

supplemental interrogatory response that (1) states whether the spreadsheet data represents final

24

data or data that was offered to customers; and (2) explains what the following column headers

25

mean: “Booked Booked Count,” “Total Contract Value,” “Total Order (Amount),” “Accounting

26

Done,” and “Invoice Total.” Finjan’s request for further discovery as to Interrogatories 4 and 5 is

27

otherwise denied.

28
4

B.

1

Requests for Production 14, 21, and 112

Based on defendants’ representations, this court assumes that the omitted data re the PEP

2
non-accused functionality was produced by September 25. If not, defendants shall produce that
3
information forthwith.
4
To the extent defendants have not already produced the updated general ledger data for the
5
past three quarters that they indisputably agreed to provide, those documents shall be produced
6

forthwith, and in any event, no later than 3 days from the date of this court’s order.

7
As discussed above, the remainder of this dispute concerns Finjan’s belief that defendants
8
have withheld responsive data, based on inconsistencies Finjan says it has found between
9
10

defendants’ general ledger data and information in an investor presentation and in defendants’
SEC filings. 1 Plaintiff now requests an order requiring defendants to produce its general ledger

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

spreadsheets for all products, including non-accused products, so that it can determine defendants’
12
revenues for itself.
13
Plaintiff’s arguments re the investor report are unavailing. Defendants say that the
14

presentation shows “annual recurring revenue,” whereas the general ledger spreadsheets record

15
recognized revenue in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. In other
16
words, defendants argue that Finjan erroneously is comparing apples to oranges. And, indeed,
17
plaintiff has not explained why the general ledger data and the information presented to investors
18
properly are comparable.
19
As for the alleged discrepancies between the general ledger spreadsheets and defendants’
20
SEC reports, Finjan says that the information should be consistent because Auvil testified in
21
deposition that the general ledger data was used to report revenues to the SEC. Finjan claims that,
22
for some quarters, the numbers produced by defendants differ by as much as 70% compared to
23
defendants’ publicly reported information. Defendants say that they are investigating these
24
matters, but remain skeptical of plaintiff’s analysis because Finjan has not explained where it got
25
26
27
28

1

Finjan also argues that “Defendants agreed to provide written confirmation of the authenticity
and time periods for documents that their 30(b)(6) witness could not testify to, but have failed to
do so.” (DDJR 4, p. 6). This statement comes out of left field, and it is not clear that this matter
has anything to do with the documents requests at issue. Nevertheless, if defendants agreed to
provide this information, they should do so forthwith.
5

1

its numbers or how those figures were calculated. They represent that they have provided Finjan

2

with their public filings, internal financial data and reporting for all accused product revenue. On

3

this record, plaintiff has not managed to persuade that these alleged deficiencies warrant

4

production of defendants’ general ledger data for all products, including non-accused ones.

5

Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling that production is denied. Nevertheless, the court will

6

require defendants to provide plaintiff with declaration(s) from appropriate person(s) attesting that

7

defendants conducted a diligent search and reasonable investigation and have produced all non-

8

privileged documents responsive to Requests 14, 21, and 112.

9
10

SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 21, 2015
________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

1
2

3:13-cv-05808-HSG Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Benu C. Wells

[e-mail]

3
Cristina Lynn Martinez

[e-mail]

4
5

David Morad Elihu

[e-mail], [e-mail]

6

Grant Nicholas Margeson

7

Hannah Yunkyung Lee

8

Iman Lordgooei [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

9

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

James R. Hannah

[e-mail], [e-mail]

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Jennifer A. Kash

[e-mail], [e-mail]

12

Lisa Kobialka

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Paul J. Andre

[e-mail], [e-mail]

13
14
15

Sam Stephen Stake [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

16

Sean Sang-Chul Pak

[e-mail], [e-mail]

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7