Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 96

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 90 Discovery Letter Brief. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
UNILOC USA, INC., et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

ORDER RE THIRD PARTY
SUBPOENA TO PENDRELL

v.

10

Re: Dkt. No. 90

APPLE INC.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 19-cv-01692-EJD (VKD)

Defendant.

12
13

Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and third party Pendrell Technologies LLC (“Pendrell”)

14

ask the Court to resolve their dispute concerning Apple’s subpoena for deposition transcripts and

15

deposition testimony from Pendrell. Dkt. No. 90. The Court deems this matter suitable for

16

resolution without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that Apple may obtain discovery of

17
18

the transcripts of prior Pendrell depositions involving the same patent portfolio and ownership

19

history at issue in this case, and that Apple may take a single deposition of Pendrell for use in the

20

four Uniloc actions against Apple.

21

I.

DISCUSSION

22

A.

23

On January 27, 2020, Apple served a subpoena for the production of documents and for

Deposition Testimony

24

deposition testimony on Pendrell. Dkt. No. 90-1. Pendrell (or its subsidiary) is a prior assignee of

25

a patent portfolio that includes the patent asserted by plaintiff Uniloc USA, Inc. (“Uniloc”) against

26

Apple in this action, as well as other patents asserted by Uniloc against Apple in three other

27

actions. Dkt. 90 at 1, 3. The dispute concerns Request No. 4 of the subpoena, which asks Pendrell

28

to produce “[a]ll deposition transcripts and documents produced in cases involving Uniloc.” Dkt.

1

No. 90-1 a 14. Pendrell does not object to producing the requested documents and also has agreed

2

to produce the requested transcripts, but only so long as Apple’s own deposition of Pendrell is

3

reduced by the amount of time Pendrell’s witness testified in prior depositions.1 Dkt. No. 90 at 5.
According to Pendrell, it has provided deposition testimony on two occasions. First,

4
5

Huawei and Samsung jointly deposed Pendrell in connection with eight Uniloc actions, four each

6

against Huawei and Samsung. Second, Google deposed Pendrell in connection with one Uniloc

7

action against Google. Id. at 3. Pendrell says that transcripts of these depositions reflect

8

approximately 12 hours of deposition testimony. Id. at 5. Apple argues—and Pendrell does not

9

dispute—that these prior Pendrell depositions concern the same ownership history for the patent
asserted against Apple in this case and the patents asserted in the other three Uniloc actions against

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Apple. Id. at 2, 3.
Pendrell does not dispute that the discovery Apple seeks is relevant and does not contend

12
13

that production of the transcripts is burdensome. Rather, Pendrell objects that requiring it to

14

provide a witness to testify for up to seven hours, after Pendrell has already provided Apple with

15

transcripts of prior relevant deposition testimony, is burdensome and not proportional to the needs

16

of the case. Id. at 4. To limit this burden, Apple proposes taking one deposition of Pendrell, not

17

to exceed seven hours, covering all four of the Uniloc actions against Apple. Id. at 1.
Pendrell argues that Apple improperly seeks “cloned discovery”—i.e., the results of other

18
19

parties’ efforts to obtain discovery in other cases. The Court is not persuaded. Apple seeks

20

discovery from the source of the information, Pendrell, not from others who have gone to the

21

trouble and expense to obtain it first. See, e.g., Barrella v. Village of Freeport, No. 12-cv-0348,

22

2012 WL 6103222, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2012) (distinguishing between subpoena directed to

23

source of information and subpoena directed to party in another case who had previously

24

subpoenaed same source). In addition, Pendrell does not complain that Apple’s discovery requests

25

are insufficiently tailored or are so broad as to encompass irrelevant material. See, e.g., Schneider

26

v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 16-cv-02200, 2017 WL 1101799 at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24,

27
28

Neither party explains how much time Pendrell proposes to allot to Apple for Apple’s own
deposition. Apple describes it as “mere minutes.”
2
1

1

2017) (permitting discovery of documents produced in separate cases with factual and legal

2

overlap); Capital Ventures Int’l v. J.P. Morgan Mortg. Acquisition Corp., No. 12-10085, 2014 WL

3

1431124, at *1 (D. Mass. Apr. 14, 2014) (distinguishing between discovery of testimony in

4

limited number of similar actions and discovery of testimony in wholly unrelated cases). Here, the

5

burden of which Pendrell complains principally results from the number of lawsuits Uniloc has

6

filed against multiple targets, rather than disproportionate discovery demands by Apple in this

7

case.

8
9

Apple may take one deposition of Pendrell across all four Uniloc cases against Apple. The
total deposition time must not exceed seven hours, even if more than one witness testifies on
behalf of Pendrell. The Court expects that Apple will endeavor to avoid duplicative and repetitive

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

questioning in its deposition of Pendrell.

12

B.

13

Pendrell alludes to a protective order or orders that may govern disclosure of the

Protective Order Issue

14

deposition transcripts in the other matters against Huawei, Samsung, and Google. However,

15

Pendrell does not argue that this protective order bars the production of any of the material Apple

16

subpoenas. Pendrell bears the burden of demonstrating that a protective order bars disclosure of

17

the transcripts to Apple, and it has not met that burden. The Court expects Pendrell to seek the

18

consent of any person or entity whose permission for disclosure is required under a protective

19

order in any other case, and to confer promptly with Apple about any necessary steps that must be

20

taken to obtain such permission.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2020

23
24
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
3