Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. ViewRay, Inc.

Filing 74

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY 73 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/21/2020)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 19-cv-05697-SI
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 73
VIEWRAY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

The parties have filed a joint letter regarding a dispute over defendant ViewRay’s

15

responses to plaintiff’s Interrogatories 11 and 12. Interrogatory No. 11 requests that ViewRay

16

“[d]escribe in detail (including dates and names of individuals involved) any and all steps that

17

ViewRay has taken to avoid infringing the Asserted Patents after learning of their existence in

18

2016.” Dkt. No. 73-1. Interrogatory No. 12 requests that ViewRay “[d]escribe in detail all

19

analysis, review, attempted design-around or investigation of Varian’s Halcyon MLC or the

20

Asserted Patents, including the identification of individuals involved, actions taken, and

21

production range of documents pertaining thereto.”

22

interrogatories by stating,

23
24
25
26

Id.

ViewRay has responded to both

[T]o the extent that Defendants intend to rely on advice of counsel for any purpose,
including with respect to the subject matter of this interrogatory, Defendants shall
furnish the same in accordance with Patent L.R. 3-7. Further, to the extent that
documents or information are withheld on the grounds of privilege, the same will
be identified on Defendants’ privilege log to be produced in accordance with the
parties’ stipulated deadline for the exchange of privilege logs in this action.
Dkt. No. 73-2.

27
Plaintiff contends that the interrogatories seek non-privileged factual information relevant
28

1

to Varian’s claims of indirect and willful infringement and to damages. ViewRay argues that

2

Varian’s demands are improper under the framework of the Patent Local Rules, and that under

3

Patent Local Rule 3-7, there is a specific time for ViewRay to provide the information Varian

4

seeks and that it is not required to disclose this information any sooner. ViewRay states that the

5

parties have negotiated an August 5, 2020 deadline to exchange privilege logs and discovery

6

encompassed by Patent Local Rule 3-7.

7

Patent Local Rule 3-7 provides,

8

Not later than thirty (3) days after filing of the Claim Construction Order, each
party relying upon advice of counsel as part of a patent-related claim or defense for
any reason must:

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

a. Produce or make available for inspection and copying the opinion(s) and any
other documentation relating to the opinion(s) as to which that party agrees the
attorney-client or work product protection has been waived; and
b. Provide a written summary of any oral advice and produce or make available for
inspection and copying that summary and documents related thereto for which the
attorney-client and work product protection have been waived; and
c. Serve a privilege log identifying any other documents, except those authored by
counsel acting solely as trial counsel, relating to the subject matter of the opinion(s)
which the party is withholding on the grounds of attorney-client privilege or work
product protection.
A party who does not comply with the requirements of Patent L.R. 3.7 will not be
permitted to rely on advice of counsel for any purpose, absent a stipulation of all
parties or by order of the court, which will be entered only upon showing of good
cause.
Patent L.R. 3-7.

20

The Court concludes that plaintiff is allowed to discover “non-privileged foundational

21

facts” that “do not require the disclosure of any legal advice sought or provided.” Gen-Probe Inc.

22

v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., Civil No. 09cv2319 BEN (NLS), 2010 WL 2011526, at *2-3 (S.D.

23

Cal. May 19, 2010) (addressing interrogatory seeking facts regarding how patent infringement

24

defendant became aware of asserted patents and similar Patent Local Rule regarding advice of

25

counsel). Thus, defendants shall respond to the interrogatories by providing the bare facts as to

26

who, what, when and how. See id. at *3. However, to the extent that the interrogatories call for

27

information covered by Patent Local Rule 3-7 and advice of counsel – such as information about

28

the disclosure of any legal advice sought or provided – that discovery is governed by Local Rule
2

1

3-7 and defendants shall provide that information pursuant to the parties’ agreement on August 5,

2

2020. Defendants shall provide supplemental interrogatory responses within 14 days of the filing

3

date of this order.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: May 21, 2020, 2020

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

9
10

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
3