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

Filing 187

SECOND ORDER DENYING IN PART JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER 177 ; ORDER FOR FURTHER MEET AND CONFER.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 07/22/15. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2015) Modified on 7/22/2015 (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF).

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.

SECOND ORDER RE: JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER

9
10

SOPHOS, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 177

Defendants.

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, Sophos moves, inter alia, to compel Fortinet to

14

provide additional documents responsive to Sophos’s Requests for Production of Documents

15

(“RFP”) and further deposition testimony on certain Rule 30(b)(6) topics:

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Rodney Mock documents. Sophos claims that during his
deposition, Rodney Mock identified “proof of concept” and “deal
flow” documents that Fortinet has yet to produce. Fortinet’s portion
of the joint letter does not address these documents.
Deposition of Rule 30(b)(6) witness James Bray. Sophos
contends that James Bray, Fortinet’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee for
financial topics, was not prepared to testify about all the topics for
which he was designated because he could not (1) provide the dates
of the first sale or offer for sale of any of the accused products, (2)
provide more than a superficial explanation of the spreadsheets, and
(3) answer “many financial-related questions.” Fortinet disputes
Sophos’s characterization of Bray’s testimony and notes that Sophos
ended the deposition with no remarks about Bray’s lack of
preparedness and no attempt to hold the deposition open. Bray was
deposed on the same day that the parties filed the joint letter.
Documents about which Bray testified. Sophos contends that
Bray testified about certain reports and documents, but that none of
those documents have been produced. Fortinet is willing to produce
additional documents if Sophos appropriately tailors its requests, but
notes that requests for reports containing “forecasts” and “budget
information” and “expenses” are not meaningfully limited discovery
demands to which Fortinet can respond.

1

Emails for Michael Xie, Jeff Crawford, and Todd Nelson.
r
d
Sophos con
ntends that Fortinet has p
F
produced so
ome but not all emails
from Fortin employe Michael Xie, Jeff Crawford, a
net
ees
l
and Todd
Nelson in re
esponse to Sophos’s RF Nos. 110
S
FPs
0-116. Each of these
h
RFPs requir Fortinet to run specif search terms in the d
res
t
fic
documents
of Xie, Cr
rawford, or Nelson. F
Fortinet resp
ponds that some of
Sophos’s search terms are undul burdenso
s
ly
ome, e.g., b
because a
search for [Forti! and change!] r
returns 19,0
000 emails from one
custodian, and also arg
a
gues that on RFP ask Fortinet’s in-house
ne
ks
counsel for communica
ations with o
outside couns however none of
sel;
r,
the RFPs attached as an exhibit to t letter inc
n
the
clude the sea
arch terms
[Forti! and change!] an Fortinet d
nd
does not clea indicate to which
arly
e
RFP it appe
ears to be ra
aising an att
ttorney-clien privilege o
nt
objection.
The parties also quarre over whe
el
ether Fortin is required to tell
net
Sophos how many hits are returne for the se
w
s
ed
earch strings Fortinet
claims are too burde
ensome, ev
ven though Fortinet a
apparently
me
nformation in its portion of the joint letter.
n
provides som of this in

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

It is cle from the parties’ disc
ear
p
connected ha
alves of the joint letter th they have not
hat
e
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ade
equately met and conferr about ea party’s p osition on th above disp
t
red
ach
he
putes. The p
portions of
12
Do
ocket No. 177 addressing the above disputes are therefore de
g
d
enied withou prejudice The
ut
e.
13
par
rties are orde
ered to meet and confer about these disputes, and file a joint letter of no more than 6
d
t
14
pag by Augu 3, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. if they are u
ges
ust
a
unable to res
solve the ma
atters withou judicial
ut
15
inte
ervention.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
18
Da
ated: July 22, 2015
,
19
20

___
__________
___________
__________
________
Donna M. Ryu
Un
nited States M
Magistrate J
Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2