EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Apple Inc.
Filing
216
ORDER DENYING 206 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS by Judge William H. Orrick. 207 , 213 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal granted. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
EON CORP IP HOLDINGS LLC,
Case No. 14-cv-05511-WHO
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
9
10
APPLE INC.,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 206, 207, 213
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
BACKGROUND
12
13
EON moves for an award of sanctions against Apple for Apple’s alleged failure to comply
14
with a discovery order. In my June 14, 2016 Order resolving the parties’ dispute over what, if
15
any, information from prior cases Apple was required to produce to EON in this case, I required
16
the following:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1. Apple shall produce from the VirnetX, Unwired Planet, and SimpleAir cases the
relevant portions of documents discussing APNs, iMessage, and FaceTime contained in: (i)
expert reports; (ii) deposition transcripts; (iii) trial transcripts; and (iv) trial exhibits.
2. Apple shall not produce information regarding other parties’ products or technology that
is protected by the protective orders or sealing orders in those cases.
If, after reviewing the production required by this Order, EON has a good faith basis for
seeking additional categories of information (e.g., pleadings or discovery responses), it
may do so, but only if supported by specific citations to materials already produced to
demonstrate relevance.
June 14, 2016 Order [Dkt. No. 184] at 2-3. EON moves for sanctions arguing that:
(i)
produced based on its own view that the redacted information was not “relevant”;
26
27
28
Apple impermissibly redacted large swaths of information from the documents it
(ii)
Apple has failed to produce third-party documents that are relevant, namely the
plaintiffs’ expert reports; and
1
(iii)
Apple took too long (two months) to produce the documents.
2
As a cure for Apple’s conduct, EON wants me to order Apple to produce the information
3
redacted for “relevance,” order Apple to produce additional documents, and pay plaintiff’s
4
counsel’s fees incurred in bringing this motion.
Apple opposes, arguing that in light of the express language of my Order, it was entitled to
5
6
redact from the documents information that did not discuss APNs, iMessage, or FaceTime, that it
7
diligently moved to produce the information covered by my Order (which required
8
communications and discussions with Apple’s outside counsel in the other litigations), and it
9
complied with my Order by refusing to produce materials designated confidential by the plaintiffs’
10
in the prior cases.
DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
I.
DELAY
EON complains that Apple excessively delayed production of the responsive documents
14
for two months under the guise of having to review for third-party confidential materials when in
15
reality Apple was taking the time to impermissibly redact large portions of the documents as
16
irrelevant. This complaint is not well-taken. Apple had to coordinate for the production with at
17
least three other law firms that acted as outside counsel for it in the other cases. Declaration of
18
Ezekiel Rauscher [Dkt. No. 212-1] ¶¶ 3,4, 8,12, 13; see also Dkt. Nos.212-2, 212-3, 212-4. The
19
responsive documents from the prior litigations were received by Apple’s current counsel between
20
June 29 and July 20, 2016. Id. ¶ 8. Apple’s current counsel (and their vendor) then reviewed the
21
documents to redact any confidential information regarding third-parties’ products or technology
22
and, I assume, also spent significant time redacting “irrelevant” information (e.g., information not
23
relevant to APNs, iMessage, or Facetime). Id. ¶¶ 9, 13.
24
Considering that Apple’s current counsel had to contact and negotiate with three law firms
25
who represented Apple in the prior cases and then review the documents produced by those firms,
26
and in light of the number of documents actually produced (over 600 documents, in excess of
27
20,000 pages), taking two months to produce the responsive materials was not unreasonable and
28
does not provide a basis for sanctioning Apple.
2
1
II.
REDACTIONS FOR RELEVANCE
Apple does not dispute that it redacted large amounts of “irrelevant” information from the
2
produced documents because those portions did not discuss APNs, iMessage, or FaceTime and my
3
4
prior Order only required Apple to product the “relevant portions of documents discussing APNs,
iMessage, and FaceTime.” (emphasis added). Apple, therefore, narrowly reads the language of
5
my prior Order to allow redactions on pages of documents that are otherwise responsive, while
6
EON offers a broader reading that would require Apple to produce unredacted pages of documents
7
where there is any discussion of APNs, iMessage, or FaceTime.
8
EON does not argue – except with respect to one document – that Apple’s redactions
9
prevent it from understanding the context of the material Apple has produced. That one document
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
is the expert report of M. Ray Perryman. EON contends that the extensive redactions – including
the table of contents – from the Perryman report show that Apple redacted relevant information
12
regarding the accused products in this case. Apple admits to having over-redacted and submits in
13
support of its opposition a revised version of the Perryman report that more narrowly redacts only
14
the names of licensees from the table of contents (as opposed to the majority of the table of
15
contents) and provides two new un-redacted paragraphs (¶ 20 and ¶ 76) that discuss APNs in
16
passing.1 EON does not specifically identify particular portions of other documents or specific
17
redactions that it claims are over-broad, either because EON cannot discern the context of the
18
discussion in which they are located or because it appears that the redacted text discusses APNs,
19
iMessage, or Facetime.
20
I cannot say that Apple has violated my Order in a way that merits sanctions. If I were
21
Apple, I might not have wasted time redacting information based solely on relevance. Then again,
22
if I were EON, I would not have wasted time raising this dispute in a fully briefed and heavily
23
papered motion for sanctions. Instead, it should have invoked the much more efficient joint
24
25
26
27
28
1
As to the redactions made in otherwise publicly available documents, Apple asserts that the
redactions from the iPhone user guide did not concern iMessage (but instead a different “Messages
application,” an explanation that EON does not contest in reply) and the redacted discussions of
“push” delivery for email, calendar and contacts do not implicate the APNs, iMessage or Facetime
products accused here. Oppo. at 3-4. EON criticizes these redactions from public documents in
its reply, but does not explain how the information redacted is necessarily relevant to the accused
products in this case such that is should have been produced under my prior Order.
3
1
discovery letter dispute process.
If there are discrete portions of documents where the redactions prevent EON from
2
3
understanding the context of the discussion of APNs, iMessage, or Facetime, or if there are other
4
specific instances where EON believes Apple over-redacted relevant information, EON should
5
invoke a meet and confer process as to those documents. If the parties cannot resolve specific
6
redaction disputes, they may submit them to me for determination under the joint discovery letter
7
dispute process.
8
III.
9
FAILURE TO PRODUCE EXPERT REPORTS
Finally, EON complains that Apple has not produced any expert reports from the plaintiffs
in the other cases. Apple responds that because its current counsel was informed by former
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
counsel for Apple that plaintiffs’ expert reports were designated as confidential by those plaintiffs,
12
Apple was not required to produce them in response to my Order. Apple, instead, produced “all
13
responsive expert reports that were not designated confidential by another party.” Oppo. 6;
14
Rauscher Decl. ¶¶4-7; Declaration of Lisa A. Tarpley [Dkt. No. 212-2] ¶ 6 (counsel for Apple in
15
SimpleAir, Inc. v. AWS Convergence Tech., et al., did not collect SimpleAir’s infringement,
16
damages, or validity expert reports because those were designated as confidential by SimpleAir
17
and discussed other parties’ technology and/or products); Declaration of Christina Kogan [Dkt.
18
No. 212-3] ¶ 5 (counsel for Apple in Unwired Planet LLC v. Apple, Inc., did not produce expert
19
reports designated as confidential by Unwired and included discussions of Unwired’s patents and
20
related technology, licenses, and other financial information), ¶ 6 (did not produce other reports
21
and discovery responses which did not discuss APNs, iMessage, or Facetime); Declaration of
22
Leslie M. Schmidt [Dkt. No. 212-4] ¶ 5 (counsel for Apple in VirnetX, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. was not
23
asked to produce and did not produce documents designated as confidential by another party in
24
that case, including VirnetX’s expert reports, which include references to VirnetX’s patents or the
25
development of technology claimed in the patents).
26
EON points out in reply that my Order allowed Apple to withhold “information regarding
27
other parties’ products or technology that is protected by the protective orders or sealing orders in
28
those cases.” (emphasis added). As such, EON argues that Apple was required to secure and
4
1
produce the portions of the plaintiffs’ expert reports that discussed Apple and Apple’s technology
2
(even if those sections of the reports were designated confidential by those plaintiffs). EON’s
3
interpretation shows that my prior Order was not as precise as it could have been.
In issuing my Order on the parties’ discovery dispute, I was attempting to address Apple’s
4
5
concern that it would be unduly burdensome (in light of the weak to non-existent showing of
6
“nexus” made by EON) for Apple to have to negotiate and secure for production information
7
marked as confidential by parties other than Apple in those other cases. Notice would need to be
8
provided under the protective orders at issue and negotiations conducted with not only the outside
9
counsel for Apple but also the plaintiffs who had designated materials as confidential. I did not
intend to put Apple (or those third parties) through that effort, but instead intended to require
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Apple to produce all information that was, essentially, within its own or its counsels’ control.
12
Apple’s interpretation accurately captured the intent of my Order.
Just as discovery disputes are more expeditiously resolved through the joint discovery
13
14
letter process, so too ambiguities in orders are more expeditiously resolved by a motion for
15
clarification as opposed to a full-blown sanctions motion.
As noted above with respect to redactions, if based on its review of the materials produced
16
17
by Apple, EON finds a need for additional production – for documents referenced in the expert
18
reports or for exhibits discussed in the depositions – EON should follow up with Apple. If the
19
parties cannot agree that specifically identified documents should be produced, that matter can be
20
brought to my attention through a joint discovery dispute letter wherein EON explains with
21
precision how the documents it seeks share a technological nexus with or are otherwise relevant to
22
the APNs, iMessage, or Facetime products at issue in this case.
23
IV.
24
MOTIONS TO SEAL
Both EON and Apple submit administrative motions to seal information submitted in
25
support of or in opposition to the motion for sanctions. Dkt. Nos. 207, 213. EON seeks to seal
26
exhibits F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, Q and R to the Declaration of Joshua Jones in Support of EON’s
27
motion for sanctions. Dkt. No. 206. Exhibits F, G, H, J, K, L and R are deposition transcripts
28
from the prior cases that according to a declaration from Apple’s counsel in support of sealing
5
1
contain confidential and proprietary information regarding Apple’s technology, marketing, and
2
finances. Dkt. No. 211,¶¶ 6-11, 14. Exhibit M is a copy of the Perryman report from the
3
SimpleAir case, and according to Apple’s declarant contains confidential financial and cost
4
information relating to Apple’s Push Notification Service. Id. ¶ 12. Exhibit Q is a copy of an
5
internal Apple marketing presentation containing confidential and proprietary information
6
regarding marketing for Facetime. Id. ¶ 13. Based on the declaration submitted in support of
7
sealing, I find good cause supports sealing of these exhibits and EON’s administrative motion to
8
seal [Dkt. No. 207] is GRANTED.
Apple moves to seal Exhibit 10 to the Declaration of Ezekiel Rauscher, which is a copy of
10
excerpts of the Perryman expert report discussed above. As above, good cause has been shown to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
seal this exhibit. Apple’s administrative motion to seal [Dkt. No. 213] is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
12
13
For the foregoing reasons, EON’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
Dated: October 28, 2016
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?