Adobe Systems Incorporation v. Wowza Media Systems, Inc.

Filing 237

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE STATEMENT re 217 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portion of the Joint Dispute Statement filed by Adobe Systems Incorporated. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on December 21, 2012. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2012)

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: JOINT DISCOVERY
DISPUTE STATEMENT (Dkt. No. 2171)

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

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ Joint Discovery Dispute Statement regarding
Adobe’s request to compel the following discovery: (1) third-party discovery from Wowza’s
customers, and (2) development computer data. (Dkt. No. 217-1.) After carefully
considering the arguments and briefing submitted, the Court concludes that oral argument is
unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and the requests are GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part.

23
24
25
26
27
28

DISCUSSION
A. Third-Party Discovery
Wowza has twice filed motions for protective orders seeking to enjoin Adobe from
subpoenaing its customers. (Dkt Nos. 81 & 175.) Through the subpoenas Adobe seeks
information from Wowza’s customers regarding their use and demand for the RTMP and
RTMPe protocols. At the hearing on the last such motion, Adobe represented that it needed

1

the information to show the reason for the customer demand for Wowza’s product. (Dkt. No.

2

193, 50:12-14 “what we really want to find is in the mind’s eye, if you will, of the customer,

3

why they went about purchasing the Wowza products, plain and simple.”) In particular,

4

Adobe subpoenaed “log files” from Wowza’s customers to demonstrate how much RTMPe

5

was being used. Because Wowza represented that it had surveyed its customers and

6

determined that only one possessed usage log data for a broader period of time than that

7

previously produced by Wowza, the Court found that Adobe should not issue the subpoenas to

8

Wowza’s customers, and instead, ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding Adobe’s

9

proposal to depose a representative sample of Wowza’s customers. (Dkt. No. 191.) The

10

parties were ordered to file a joint letter brief by November 21, 2012 if they were unable to

11

resolve the issue.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

The parties apparently met and conferred and agreed that in lieu of depositions Adobe

13

could propound written deposition questions on 10 of Wowza’s customers with Wowza

14

having the right to first vet the questions posed.1 (Dkt. No. 218-10.) The parties have now

15

reached an impasse regarding the written deposition questions and seek the Court’s assistance

16

to resolve the matter. (Dkt. No. 217-1).

17

Wowza contends that Adobe’s 29 depositions questions are unduly burdensome. The

18

Court has reviewed the questions and finds that while most of the questions are appropriate,

19

several go beyond Adobe’s stated need for information regarding what drives Wowza’s

20

customer demand. (Dkt. No. 218, Ex. 11.) In particular, the following questions are beyond

21

the scope of the reasons for the discovery previously articulated by Adobe:
 Questions 6-8 call for information regarding Adobe’s, not Wowza’s products,

22

and goes beyond scope of what drives Wowza’s customer demand.

23

 Questions 22-27 are similarly unrelated to customer demand for Wowza’s

24

product.

25

Accordingly, Adobe shall modify its questions in accordance with this Order.

26
27
28

1

Wowza agreed to offer its customers the option of a short telephonic deposition in lieu of
responding to the written questions.
2

1
2

B. Development Computer Data

3

Adobe contends that Wowza has refused to produce files from its development

4

computers that are relevant to showing how it engaged in prohibited interception or

5

circumvention activities. Adobe contends that 3,717 files are in issue, although it does not

6

specify what data is contained in these files; rather, Adobe states that it provided a “specific

7

category listing of the requested files together with a description of why each category is

8

relevant to the issues of circumvention and interception” citing to an email sent by Plaintiff’s

9

counsel Ryan Hatch on December 2, 2012. (Dkt. No. 217-1, 3:25-26.) However, that email
provided in these files,” but the description of relevance is not attached. (Dkt. No. 218-14.)

12
Northern District of California

refers to an attached listing of subset of files and a “description of relevance [that] is also

11
United States District Court

10

Accordingly, all the Court has to evaluate the reasonableness of this discovery is Adobe’s bare

13

assertion of relevance.

14

The files at issue appear to fall within two categories: (1) commercial software files,

15

and (2) compiled software files. With respect to the commercial software files, Adobe

16

contends that it needs the IDA Pro tool that Wowza used to reverse engineer Adobe’s protocol

17

in order to open the files that Wowza has produced. Its experts opine that they have not been

18

able open the files with their own version of IDA Pro because Wowza’s files appear to have

19

been created with an unlicensed version of IDA Pro. Wowza baldly responds that it believes

20

Adobe’s explanation is false, but it does not offer any explanation of its own. More

21

importantly, it does not articulate any burden with respect to production of the version of IDA

22

Pro it used to create the files it has produced. Accordingly, Adobe’s motion to compel

23

production of Wowza’s IDA Pro tool is GRANTED.

24

As for the compiled software files, Wowza objects to their production on the ground

25

that they can easily be decompiled into raw source code and pursuant to the protective order

26

source code should only be produced in hard copy format. Further, Wowza contends that it

27

already produced the underlying source code which is compiled from these files. Adobe

28

simply contends the files are relevant and that the fact that they can be decompiled is not a

3

1

basis to withhold the files. Adobe’s conclusory arguments regarding the relevance of these

2

computer files are unpersuasive, especially in light of Wowza’s contention that this discovery

3

is cumulative and potentially runs afoul of the Stipulate Protective Order. Accordingly, the

4

Court declines to order Wowza to produce the compiled software from the development

5

computers.

6

This Order disposes of Docket No. 217-1.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: December 21, 2012

_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

4