Finjan, Inc. v. Sonicwall, Inc.

Filing 281

Discovery Order re 276 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re SonicWall's Responses to Finjan's RFAs, 277 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re SonicWall's Patent Portfolio. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 8/18/2020. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2020)

Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 281 Filed 08/18/20 Page 1 of 2

1

‘

2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

FINJAN, INC.,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)

v.
SONICWALL, INC.,
Defendant.

12

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES
RE SONICWALL’S PATENT
PORTFOLIO AND RESPONSES TO
FINJAN’S REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 276, 277

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

On August 7, 2020, the parties filed joint discovery letter briefs regarding two discoveryrelated disputes: (1) SonicWall’s responses to Finjan’s Requests for Admission Nos. 17-19 and 22
(Dkt. No. 276), and (2) SonicWall’s identification of its patent portfolio in its second supplemental
initial disclosures served on the last day of fact discovery (Dkt. No. 277). Finjan seeks sanctions
in the form of deemed admissions or further responses to its requests for admission, and striking
SonicWall’s second supplemental initial disclosures with respect to its patent portfolio. The Court
heard oral argument on the parties’ disputes on August 18, 2020. Dkt. No. 280.
For the reasons stated on the record, the Court resolves these disputes as follows:
With respect to SonicWall’s responses to Finjan’s requests for admission, the Court finds
no violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 occurred. SonicWall’s objections and answers
satisfy the requirements of Rule 36(a)(4) with respect to the requests at issue. No sanctions are
warranted.
With respect to SonicWall’s second supplemental initial disclosures, the Court finds that
no violation of Rule 26(a) or (e) occurred. Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a party to provide a

Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 281 Filed 08/18/20 Page 2 of 2

1

description or a copy of documents that it may use to support a claim or defense. There is no

2

dispute that SonicWall timely produced the documents at issue. The fact that SonicWall also

3

separately identified those documents in a supplement to its initial disclosures on the last day of

4

fact discovery does not create a violation of Rule 26(a) or (e) where none otherwise exists. No

5

sanctions are warranted.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 18, 2020

8
9
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

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
2