Optrics Inc v. Barracuda Networks Inc

Filing 208

Discovery Order re: 189 Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Motion for Protective Order for Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Barracuda Networks, Inc. filed by Barracuda Networks Inc, 195 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re 30(b)(6) topics filed by Optrics Inc. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 1/29/2020. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

OPTRICS INC,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-04977-RS (TSH)
DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 189, 195
BARRACUDA NETWORKS INC,
Defendant.

12
13

The Court held a telephonic hearing today on ECF Nos. 189 and 195, which concern

14

Optrics’ amended Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice to Barracuda. The Court orders as follows:

15

Definitions 1, 3, 4 and 9. The definitions are sufficiently clear. Any assertion that the

16

defined term includes irrelevant matters is really an objection to a topic.

17

Topic 1. This topic is relevant and proportional from 2013 to the present.

18

Topic 2. This topic is relevant and proportional from 2013 to the present.

19

Topic 3. Optrics has accepted Barracuda’s position.

20

Topic 4. This topic is overbroad and unfocused.

21

Topic 5. This topic is relevant and proportional from 2013 to the present. It’s true that

22

some of the marks are not specifically referred to in the Second Amended Complaint, but the SAC

23

does allege a broad pattern of Barracuda registering marks that begin with the word “cuda,” see,

24

e.g., SAC ¶ 47, and the ones mentioned in the deposition notice are just more of those.

25
26

Topic 6. This topic is relevant and proportional from 2013 to the present, except the Court
strikes “or intent to adopt” from this topic.

27

Topic 7. Optrics accepts Barracuda’s position.

28

Topic 8. This topic is relevant and proportional from 2013 to the present.

1

Topic 9. Optrics accepts Barracuda’s position.

2

Topic 10. This topic is relevant and proportional, at least as to general topics. A Rule

3

30(b)(6) designee can’t be expected to remember every detail of a nine-year business relationship.

4

Topic 11. This topic is irrelevant.

5

Topic 12. This topic is not relevant or proportional.

6

Topic 13. This topic is overbroad and not proportional.

7

Topic 14. This topic is relevant and proportional.

8

Topic 15. This topic is relevant and proportional. For this and the other topics, the Court

9

is not ruling on any claims of attorney-client privilege.
Topic 16. This topic is overbroad and not proportional.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Topic 17. This topic is relevant and proportional.

12

Topic 18. This topic is relevant and proportional. No date restriction is required.

13

Topic 19. This topic is relevant and proportional.

14

Topic 20. This topic is irrelevant. It is outside the scope of Optrics’ claims as alleged in

15

the SAC.

16

Topic 21. This topic is relevant and proportional.

17

Topic 22. This topic is relevant and proportional.

18

Topic 23. This topic is overbroad and vague.

19

Topic 24. This topic is relevant and proportional.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: January 29, 2020

24
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
2