Fortinet, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc. et al

Filing 185

ORDER DENYING IN PART JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER 177 ; ORDER FOR FURTHER MEET AND CONFER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 07/21/15. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FORTINET, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-05831-EMC (DMR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

SOPHOS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING IN PART JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER; ORDER FOR
FURTHER MEET AND CONFER
Re: Dkt. No. 177

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Before the court is a joint discovery letter filed by Plaintiff Fortinet, Inc. and Defendant

13

Sophos, Inc. [Docket No. 177.] In the letter, Fortinet moves, inter alia, to compel Sophos to

14

provide further responses to Fortinet’s Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) Nos. 123-

15

134, 149-165, 174, which address roughly five separate subject matters. Fortinet does not raise

16

concerns with Sophos’s specific responses to each RFP, but instead notes an overarching concern

17

that Sophos has produced documents only from the devices provided to Fortinet for inspection, but

18

Sophos should expand its search for responsive documents beyond these devices. Sophos’s

19

response ignores Fortinet’s overarching concern, notes vague objections to the 28 RFPs as being

20

“overly broad and unduly burdensome” and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

21

admissible evidence, and states that it is “looking forward to presenting arguments to the Court as

22

to why each and every document request[] Fortinet complains of is deficient.” Letter at 8.

23

It therefore appears from the joint letter that the parties have not adequately met and

24

conferred about each party’s position on the disputed Fortinet RFPs. The portion of Docket No.

25

177 addressing the Fortinet RFPs is therefore denied without prejudice. The parties are ordered

26

to meet and confer about the Fortinet RFPs, and file a joint letter of no more than 4 pages by

27

August 3, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. if they are unable to resolve the matter without judicial intervention.

28

In the joint letter, both parties must describe with specificity the discovery produced to date that is

1

res
sponsive to th Fortinet RFPs, and Fo
he
R
ortinet must specify how Sophos’s p
w
production is deficient.
s

2

Sop
phos is furth advised that a statement that it is “looking forward to pre
her
esenting argu
uments to

3

the Court” at a future date is insufficien to give Fo
e
nt
ortinet and th court noti of its objections to
he
ice

4

eac RFP.
ch

5
6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: July 21, 2015
,
___
__________
___________
__________
________
Donna M. Ryu
Un
nited States M
Magistrate J
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
2