Adobe Systems Incorporation v. Wowza Media Systems, Inc.

Filing 139

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT STATEMENT (Dkt. No. 133). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 7/25/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,

Northern District of California

Plaintiff,

12
United States District Court

11

v.

13
14

Case No.: 11-2243 CW (JSC)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT STATEMENT (Dkt. No. 133)

WOWZA MEDIA SYSTEMS, LLC, and
COFFEE CUP PARTNERS, INC. (F/K/A/
WOWZA MEDIA SYSTEMS, INC.),

15

Defendants.

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

Pending before the Court is a Joint Statement Regarding Discovery Dispute (Dkt. No.
133). The parties seek a determination from the Court regarding the number of
interrogatories propounded by Defendant Wowza to date. The Court finds that the Motion is
suitable for determination without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–1(b).
Having considered the papers submitted to the Court, the Court finds that as propounded
Defendants’ interrogatories may exceed the agreed upon limit on Interrogatories in this
action.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Procedure 33(a)(1) limits the parties in an action to “no more than 25
written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” Here, the parties agreed to a total
interrogatory limit of 60 per side, which was adopted by the Court on October 11, 2011.
(Dkt. Nos. 25, 28). To date, Defendants have served four sets of interrogatories for a total of

1

33 interrogatories. A dispute has arisen regarding whether some portion of these

2

interrogatories should be counted as multiple interrogatories.
Plaintiff contends that many of the interrogatories and subparts thereto should be

3
4

counted as separate interrogatories relying on cases which provide that interrogatories and

5

the subparts thereto that contain distinct or separate subjects should be counted as multiple

6

interrogatories. See, e.g., Hasan v. Johnson, No. 08-00381, 2012 WL 569370, at *3 (E.D.

7

Cal. Feb. 21, 2012); Trevino v. ACB American, Inc., 232 F.R.D. 612, 614 (N.D. Cal. 2006);

8

Collaboration Properties, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 473, 475 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

9

Defendants counter that these and other cases also incorporate a “logical relationship” test

logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.”

12
Northern District of California

such that “interrogatory subparts are to be counted as one interrogatory . . . if they are

11
United States District Court

10

Trevino, 232 F.R.D. at 614 (internal citations omitted). The Court finds that under either

13

approach many of Defendants’ interrogatories cover multiple distinct subjects and thus

14

constitute multiple interrogatories.

15

The Court has reviewed the ten interrogatories at issue.1 The Court declines to

16

undertake the laborious process of reviewing each disputed interrogatory and dividing it into

17

subparts; instead, the Court provides the following guidance with respect to the

18

interrogatories in dispute.

19

A.

Interrogatory No. 11

20

Interrogatory No. 11 (Dkt. No. 133-1, pp. 4-5) states as follows:

21

For each of the following subjects, provide the names of the three persons
having the most personal knowledge and/or involvement with that subject: (a)
the drafting of the RTMP Specification License; (b) the decision to issue the
RTMP Specification License; (c) the drafting of the June 20, 2009 Press Release
entitled “Adobe to Open Flash Platform Messaging Protocol,” (d) the decision
to issue the June 20, 2009 Press Release entitled “Adobe to Open Flash Platform
Messaging Protocol,” (e) the market in which Adobe’s Flash Media Server has
competed from 2005 to present (“Relevant Market”); (f) the share of the
Relevant Market held by Adobe’s Flash Media Server from 2005 to present; (g)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Interrogatories in dispute are Interrogatory Nos. 11, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, and
32.
2

4

competitors and competing products in the Relevant Market; (h) the prosecution
of each of the Patents-in-Suit; (i) correspondence with third-parties regarding
the RTMP Specification License; (j) Adobe’s investigation of Wowza prior to
instituting this Litigation; (k) Adobe’s investigation and analysis of the Accused
Instrumentalities prior to instituting this Litigation; and (l) Adobe’s decision to
institute this Litigation.

5

Defendants argue that this interrogatory at most constitutes three separate

1
2
3

6

interrogatories. Plaintiff contends that each of the listed subjects represents a distinct

7

interrogatory. The Court finds that Defendant is seeking information regarding twelve

8

different subjects in this interrogatory and each identified subject represents a distinct sub-

9

part. Thus, this interrogatory constitutes twelve separate interrogatories.

10

B.

Interrogatories No. 24 and 25

Northern District of California

Interrogatories No. 24 and 25 (Dkt. No. 133-1, pp. 14-15) state in relevant part:

12
United States District Court

11

23

Interrogatory No. 24
Describe in detail the public beta testing of Flash Player 6, including, at least:
a.
When the beta test began and ended;
b.
When the first copy of Flash Player 6 was provided to someone
outside of Adobe;
c.
The name of the first person outside of Adobe to receive Flash
Player 6;
d.
How many people received Flash Player 6 during the beta test;
e.
The presence or absence of RTMP functionality in the public beta
version of Flash Player 6;
f.
A description of any RTMP functionality in the public beta
version of Flash Player 6;
g.
An estimate of the number of copies of Flash Player 6 downloaded
prior to February 13, 2002.
h.
What mechanism(s), if any, Adobe put in place to control access
to the software distributed in connection with the beta test;
i.
What mechanism(s), if any, participants in the beta test had to
communicate their experience with Flash Player 6 to Adobe.

24

[omitted because the parties do not dispute the remainder of the interrogatory].

25

Interrogatory No. 25
Describe in detail the public beta testing of Flash Player 9, update 3 including, at
least:
a.
When the beta test began and ended;
b.
When the first copy of Flash Player 9, update 3 was provided to
someone outside of Adobe;

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

26
27
28

3

c.

The name of the first person outside of Adobe to receive Flash
Player 9, update 3;
d.
How many people received Flash Player 9, update 3 during the
beta test;
e.
The presence or absence of RTMP functionality in the public beta
version of Flash Player 9, update 3;
f.
A description of any RTMP functionality in the public beta
version of Flash Player 9, update 3;
g.
An estimate of the number of copies of Flash Player 9, update 3
downloaded prior to October 15, 2008;
h.
What mechanism(s), if any, Adobe put in place to control access
to the software distributed in connection with the beta test;
i.
What mechanism(s), if any, participants in the beta test had to
communicate their experience with Flash Player 9, update 3 to
Adobe
[omitted because the parties do not dispute the remainder of the interrogatory].

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff argues that these two interrogatories each represent two interrogatories
because the details of public beta testing are a separate issue from the technical question of
how the streaming protocols were reported. The Court finds that the information sought in
these interrogatories is not as severable as Plaintiff contends. The technical information that
Defendants seek regarding the RTMP streaming functionality is limited to the beta testing.
As such, each interrogatory is properly viewed as a single interrogatory.
C.

Interrogatory No. 30
Interrogatory No. 30 (Dkt. No. 133-5, p. 4) states in relevant part:
Identify and describe the good-faith basis Adobe had, prior to filing this suit, for
accusing Wowza of infringing the Patents-in-Suit, and identify and describe any
analysis undertaken in support of Adobe’s pre-suit investigation concerning the
infringement, validity, and enforceability, of each asserted claim of the Patentsin-Suit by Wowza, as well as any analysis undertaken in support of Adobe’s
pre-suit investigation concerning the applicability of the RTMP Specification
License to Wowza, including all information Adobe obtained from observing,
using, or testing each of the Accused Products; state all facts or observations
supporting your good-faith basis and/or presuit investigation; identify all
documents or items of evidence supporting or contravening your good faith
basis and/or pre-suit investigation; and identify all individuals with knowledge
of any facts relating to, supporting or contravening your good-faith basis and/or
pre-suit investigation. [omitted because the parties do not dispute the remainder
of the interrogatory].

4

1

Plaintiff contends that this interrogatory constitutes three separate interrogatories

2

because it asks Adobe to (1) describe its basis for accusing Wowza of infringing on the

3

patents at issue, (2) identify and describe any analysis undertaken in support of Adobe’s pre-

4

suit investigation concerning the infringement, validity and enforceability of each claim, and

5

(3) describe any analysis undertaken regarding the applicability of the RTMP Specification

6

License to Wowza. The Court agrees that this interrogatory seeks information regarding

7

three distinct subject matters. “[W]hen a subpart introduces a line of inquiry that is separate

8

and distinct from the inquiry made by the portion of the interrogatory that precedes it, the

9

subpart must be considered a separate interrogatory no matter how it is designated.” 7-33

properly counted as three separate interrogatories.

12
Northern District of California

Moore's Fed. Prac.-Civ. § 33.30. Accordingly, the Court finds that this interrogatory is

11
United States District Court

10

D.

Interrogatory Nos. 31 and 32

13

Interrogatory Nos. 31 and 32 (Dkt. No. 133-13, pp. 3-4) state in relevant part:

14

Interrogatory 31
Describe in detail the development and implementation of RTMP, including all
aspects of RTMP you contend are described in any of the Patents-in-Suit. In
your description, include a description of: the product that was modified to
include RTMP and what was done to modify said product, the reasons causing
the developers to consider improving or modifying said product with RTMP and
why that decision was made; or if the developers were not considering an
improvement or modification, what gave rise to the idea embodied by RTMP;
any and all advantages that were expected to be gained by adding RTMP to said
product and an analysis of said advantages, including whether said advantages
were actually realized; any other methods of improvement tried before or after
the development and implementation of RTMP; all technical documents
considered in connection with the development of RTMP; any and all problems
encountered during the development and implementation of RTMP; all tools
used in developmental testing; and all initial, intermediate, and final
methodologies for implementing RTMP, and all reasons that implementation
methods were modified. In your response, state all facts or observations
supporting your descriptions; identify all documents or items of evidence
referenced or relied upon by anyone associated with the development,
implementation and/or testing of RTMP; and identify all individuals with
knowledge of any facts surrounding the development, implementation and/or
testing of RTMP. [omitted because the parties do not dispute the remainder of
the interrogatory].

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

5

1

Interrogatory No. 32

2

Identical to Interrogatory No. 31 except that it is for RTMPe rather than RTMP.

3

Plaintiff argues that these interrogatories should be counted as seven separate

4

interrogatories each. The Court agrees. These interrogatories seek the universe of

5

information regarding RTMP and RTMPe and Defendants included a very specific laundry

6

list of information sought regarding each. They are each properly counted as seven

7

individual interrogatories.

8

E.

The Remaining Interrogatories
The Court declines to make specific findings regarding each of the remaining

9

Order and apply it to the remaining disputed interrogatories. Based on the Court’s reasoning

12
Northern District of California

categories, and instead, recommends that the parties take the guidance provided by this

11
United States District Court

10

above, the parties should be able to work out whether the remaining disputed interrogatories

13

(Interrogatory Nos. 15, 16, 17, and 29) constitute multiple interrogatories.
CONCLUSION

14

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that many of the interrogatories propounded by

15
16

Plaintiffs constitute multiple interrogatories. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer

17

and attempt to resolve the dispute regarding the remaining interrogatories.2

18

Plaintiff’s Motion to File Exhibits A and B to the Joint Statement Under Seal (Dkt. No.

19

134) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall electronically file the exhibits under seal within three days

20

of the date of this Order.

21

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 133 and 134.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: July 25, 2012

24

_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28

2

The Court declines to reconsider its Order that the parties meet and confer in person prior to
filing any discovery disputes with the Court.
6