Cisco Systems Inc-v-Arista Networks, Inc

Filing 203

ORDER REGARDING 181 DEFENDANT ARISTA'S SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/17/2016. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

CISCO SYSTEMS INC,

Case No. 14-cv-05344-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT
ARISTA'S SUPPLEMENTAL
PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN
[Re: ECF 181]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Before the Court is Defendant Arista Networks, Inc.’s supplemental proposed discovery

13
14

plan. ECF 181. On December 4, 2015, the Court allowed the parties to conduct up to twenty

15

depositions total plus 30(b)(6) depositions. ECF 137. That order was without prejudice to Arista

16

seeking additional discovery upon a showing of good cause. Id. On January 28, 2016, the Court

17

held a case management conference during which Arista sought an additional twenty depositions

18

per side, for a total of forty depositions per side. ECF 161 at 2. Pursuant to the Court’s request,

19

on February 5, 2016, Arista filed a supplemental proposed discovery plan explaining its reasons

20

for needing an additional twenty depositions. ECF 181. On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff Cisco

21

Systems Inc. filed its opposition. ECF 197.

22

I.

BACKGROUND
As of February 5, 2016, Arista has conducted the following five depositions of individuals

23
24

who authored Cisco’s CLI command expressions: (1) Anthony Li; (2) Tong Liu; (3) Kirk

25

Lougheed; (4) Abhay Roy; and (5) Terry Slattery. Mot. 2-3, ECF 181. Arista also deposed Jung

26

Tjong, one of the named inventors of the ’886 patent and Jeffrey Wheeler, one of the named

27

inventors of the ’526 patent. Id. at 3. Arista also noticed an additional eleven depositions. Id. at

28

4.

Four of these depositions involve CLI authors: (1) Ram Kavasseri; (2) Pedro Marques; (3)

1

Devadas Patil; and (4) Gregory Satz. Id. Six of the noticed depositions involve competitors: (1)

2

Avaya; (2) Brocade; (3) Dell; (4) Juniper Networks; (5) Hewlett-Packard; and (6) Lenovo. Id.

3

The final noticed deposition involves Stanford University, Cisco founder Kirk Lougheed’s former

4

place of employment. Id.

5

Arista now seeks to increase the number of depositions by an additional twenty

6

depositions. Mot., ECF 180-4. According to Arista, it would use its remaining depositions to

7

depose the following twenty-two individuals: (1) nine individuals from a list of eighteen CLI

8

authors; (2) Fred Baker, the former Chair of the Internet Engineering Task Force and a Cisco

9

employee who has written several industry standards; (3) Phillip Remaker, an individual who
played a substantial role in developing Cisco’s CLI command expressions; (4) three competitors

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

that use a command line interface; (5) two additional named patent inventors, one from the ’886

12

patent and one from the ’526 patent; (6) two to three individuals who were on Cisco’s internal

13

teams devoted to competing with Arista; (7) one to two sales and marketing individuals related to

14

Cisco’s alleged lost sales; and (8) two Cisco personnel who are knowledgeable about Cisco’s

15

products Tail-f and Network Compliance Manager. Id. at 5-7.

16
17

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2), parties are limited to ten depositions per side but Fed. R.

18

Civ. P. 26(b)(2) provides that “the court may alter the limits…on the number of depositions

19

[allowed] under Rule 30.” A party seeking to exceed the presumptive number of depositions must

20

make a particularized showing of the need for additional discovery. Century Aluminum Co. v.

21

AGCS Marine Ins. Co., Case No. 11-cv-02514-YGR(NC), 2012 WL 2357446, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

22

June 14, 2012).

23

In determining whether to increase the number of depositions, the Court considers whether

24

(1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some

25

other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (2) the party seeking

26

discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought;

27

or (3) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P.

28

26(b)(2). Rule 26(b)(1) allows parties to “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
2

1

that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case…” Fed.

2

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

3

III.

DISCUSSION

4

A.

5

Arista seeks to depose nine additional CLI authors from a list of eighteen individuals.

Additional CLI Authors

6

Mot.5, ECF 180-4. According to Arista, it expects each author will testify about the commands

7

they authored and whether those commands stem from industry standards, common usage, or

8

software systems that pre-date Cisco’s founding. Id. Arista also believes that some authors may

9

deny Cisco’s claims that they authored certain commands. Id. Cisco argues that Arista’s request

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

is cumulative and of little relevance. Opp. 3, ECF 196-2.
The Court finds Arista has failed to show a particularized need to depose nine additional

12

CLI authors. Arista has already deposed five CLI authors and noticed depositions for four

13

additional CLI authors. While Arista has explained what it hopes to obtain from deposing an

14

additional nine CLI authors, Arista has not shown how these depositions are not duplicative and

15

cumulative of the information it obtained from the five depositions it already conducted and the

16

four depositions it will conduct of CLI authors. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Arista’s request

17

to take an additional nine depositions.

18

B.

19

Arista notes that Mr. Baker is a former Chair of the Internet Engineering Task Force and a

Fred Baker

20

Cisco employee who has written several industry standard-setting documents that are relevant to

21

the asserted commands. Mot. 5, ECF 180-4. Cisco argues that Arista has not explained how Mr.

22

Baker is relevant or necessary to this action. Opp. 8, ECF 196-2.

23

The Court agrees with Cisco. It is not clear how the deposition of Mr. Baker is relevant to

24

Arista’s defense of this suit. The Court therefore DENIES Arista’s request to take an additional

25

deposition.

26

C.

27

Arista claims Cisco has repeatedly maintained that the only two individuals relevant to the

28

Phillip Remaker

authorship of its CLI commands are Kirk Lougheed and Mr. Remaker. Mot. 5-6, ECF 180-4.
3

1

According to Arista, Cisco has claimed Mr. Remaker played a substantial role in the development

2

of Cisco’s CLI and command syntax. Id. at 6. Cisco argues that Mr. Remaker’s deposition would

3

be cumulative of Arista’s depositions of the other CLI authors. Opp. 3, ECF 196-2.

4

The Court finds Arista has shown a particularized need to depose Mr. Remaker. Since Mr.

5

Remaker played a substantial role in the development of the CLI commands and has been put forth

6

by Cisco as a key individual to depose, the Court GRANTS Arista’s request for an additional

7

deposition.
D.

9

Arista seeks to depose three competitors, D-Link, Edge-Core, and Extreme, on the grounds

10

that these depositions are relevant to its defenses of estoppel, laches, fair use, and misuse. Mot. 6,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

ECF 180-4. Arista claims that each competitor uses a command line interface that includes many

12

of the same commands asserted by Cisco in this action. Id. Cisco argues that these third parties,

13

and the third party competitors that Arista already noticed for deposition, are not relevant to

14

whether Arista copied Cisco’s CLI. Opp. 6-8, ECF 196-2.

Competitors

15

The Court finds Arista has not shown a particularized need for the depositions of D-Link,

16

Edge-Core, and Extreme. Arista has already noticed depositions for six competitors and it is not

17

clear to the Court, nor has Arista explained, how the depositions of D-Link, Edge-Core, and

18

Extreme would not be duplicative or cumulative. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Arista’s

19

request for an additional three depositions.

20

E.

21

Arista requests to take the depositions of Prakash Bettadapur, one of the named inventors

22

of the ’886 patent, and Paul Mustoe, one of the named inventors of the ’526 patent. Mot. 6, ECF

23

180-4. Based on its deposition of Jeffrey Wheeler, the first named inventor of the ’526 patent,

24

Arista believes it is necessary to depose Mr. Mustoe. Id. According to Arista, during Mr.

25

Wheeler’s deposition, Mr. Wheeler deferred questions to Mr. Mustoe. Id. at 3. Cisco argues that

26

Arista has already deposed Mr. Tjong, the other named inventor of the ’886 patent and Mr.

27

Bettadapur’s deposition would be duplicative. Opp. 9, ECF 196-2. Cisco does not address the

28

request to depose Mr. Mustoe. Id.

Additional Patent Inventors

4

1

The Court finds Arista has not shown a particularized need for the deposition of Mr.

2

Bettadapur. Arista has not explained why his deposition would not be duplicative or cumulative

3

of Mr. Tjong’s deposition. However, the Court finds Arista has shown a particularized need to

4

depose Mr. Mustoe based on its deposition of Mr. Wheeler. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

5

Arista’s request for one additional deposition.

6

F.

7

Arista seeks to depose two to three individuals from Cisco’s internal teams devoted to

Competitive Personnel

8

competing with Arista. Mot. 6, ECF 180-4. According to Arista, this testimony will be relevant

9

to Arista’s estoppel, laches, fair use, and misuse defenses and to Cisco’s damages and request for
injunctive relief. Id. Cisco argues that Arista has not shown why it needs to depose more than one

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

individual on this subject, and that any depositions beyond one would be duplicative or

12

cumulative. Opp. 9, ECF 196-2.

13

The Court finds Arista has shown a particularized need to depose one individual from

14

Cisco’s internal team devoted to Arista. However, Arista has not shown why it needs more than

15

one deposition or how additional depositions would not be duplicative or redundant. Accordingly,

16

the Court GRANTS IN PART Arista’s request and allows Arista one additional deposition.

17

G.

18

Arista would like to depose one to two individuals relating to Cisco’s lost sales. Mot. 6,

Sales Marketing Personnel

19

ECF 180-4. Cisco argues that Arista has not shown why it needs more than one deposition on this

20

topic. Opp. 9, ECF 196-2.

21

The Court agrees with Cisco. Arista has shown a particularized need to depose one sales

22

and marketing individual. However, Arista has not shown why it needs more than one deposition

23

or how additional depositions would not be cumulative. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN

24

PART Arista’s request and allows Arista one additional deposition.

25

H.

26

Arista seeks to depose two individuals knowledgeable about Cisco’s products Tail-f and

Tail-f & Network Compliance Manager Personnel

27

Network Compliance Manager. Mot. 6-7, ECF 180-4. According to Arista, these products are

28

relevant to its estoppel, fair use, and misuses defenses. Id. at 7. Cisco argues that these products
5

1

are not relevant to its allegations that Arista copied Cisco’s CLI. Opp. 9, ECF 196-2.
As with competitive personnel, and sales and marketing personnel, the Court finds Arista

2
3

has shown a particularized need to depose one individual knowledgeable about Tail-f and Network

4

Compliance Manager. However, Arista has not shown why it needs more than one deposition or

5

how additional depositions would not be redundant. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART

6

Arista’s request and allows Arista one additional deposition.

7

IV.

8
9

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Arista’s motion for leave to

take additional depositions is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Arista may take an
additional five depositions in excess of the twenty depositions previously allowed. In equity, the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Court also allows Cisco to take an additional five depositions. As a result, both parties are

12

allowed 25 depositions total plus 30(b)(6) depositions.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6