Kelora Systems, LLC v. Target Corporation et al

Filing 449

ORDER RE 12/27/2011 DISCOVERY LETTER 437 . Signed by Judge Beeler on 1/24/2011. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
KELORA SYSTEMS, LLC,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 11-01548 CW (LB)

Plaintiff,
v.

13

ORDER RE 12/27/2011 DISCOVERY
LETTER

TARGET CORPORATION, et al.,
14
15
16

[ECF No. 437]
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
The district court has referred all discovery matters in the above-captioned patent case and the

17

related cases to the undersigned. Referral Order, ECF No. 333 at 2.1 On December 27, 2011,

18

Kelora Systems, LLC and Defendants2 submitted a joint discovery letter in which Kelora seeks to

19

compel Defendants to produce documents in response to discovery requests for the subdomains and

20

subdirectories of the parent web sites identified in its infringement contentions. 12/27/2011 Joint

21

Discovery Letter, ECF No. 437 at 1.

22

At a telephonic hearing, the parties resolved the dispute. Defendants explained that some of the

23

subdomains and subdirectories – specifically discussing the Hewlet-Packard sites – have different

24

appearances, functionality, and manner of communicating with the servers than the charted sites.

25

Plaintiff agreed that the preliminary infringement contentions do not cover the subdomains and

26
27
28

1

Citations are to the clerk’s electronic case file (ECF) with pin cites to the electronic page
numbers at the top (as opposed to the bottom) of the page.
2

Defendants are Amazon.com, Inc., Costco, Hewlet-Packard Co., Office Depot, Target,
Zappos.com, and Audible.
ORDER RE 12/27/2011 DISCOVERY LETTER
C 11-01548 CW (LB)

1

subdirectories that (1) are not specifically charted in their preliminary infringement contentions and

2

(2) implement what might be considered “guided parametric search” using different hardware or

3

software than that used by the sites identified in the preliminary infringement contentions.

4

Defendants reiterated their commitment to producing source code and technical documents on the

5

accused functionality, regardless of the dynamically-generated host URL, where the Defendants’

6

sites implement the accused functionality in the same manner as the sites described in Plaintiff’s

7

preliminary infringement contentions.

8
9

Given the parties’ representations at the hearing, the court denies Kelora’s motion to compel as
moot.
This disposes of ECF No. 437.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

Dated: January 24, 2012

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER RE 12/27/2011 DISCOVERY LETTER
C 11-01548 CW (LB)

2