Gabriel Technologies et al v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al

Filing 287

ORDER on 266 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute - Damages Discovery. Defendants' objection to providing any damages discovery as requested by Plaintiffs is overruled. Discovery must be provided as provided in the attached Order. The Court will rule on specific objections as are raised that survive a meet and confer and are submitted in a joint motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 8/2/12. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GABRIEL TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, et al.,

CASE NO. 08cv1992 AJB (MDD)

12
Plaintiffs,
13

v.

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE:
DAMAGES DISCOVERY

14
QUALCOMM, INCORPORATED, et al.,

[Re: ECF No. 266]

15
Defendants.
16
17

Background

18

Before the Court is the joint motion of the parties to resolve a discovery

19

dispute. (ECF No. 266). Plaintiffs are seeking financial discovery regarding damages

20

in connection with their surviving contract claims upon a theory of unjust

21

enrichment. (ECF No. 266 at 6-8). Defendants assert that Plaintiffs are not entitled

22

to this discovery because the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim for unjust

23

enrichment in its entirety. (ECF No. 266 at 9-11). Plaintiffs claim that despite the

24

dismissal, they are entitled to claim damages for unjust enrichment in connection

25

with the remaining contract claims in the case. (Id.). On June 15, 2012, this Court

26

required the parties to submit supplemental briefing. The issue to be briefed was

27

whether, considering the posture of this case, Plaintiffs may avail themselves of a

28
-1-

08cv1992 AJB (MDD)

1

theory of unjust enrichment as a remedy to their remaining breach of contract claims.

2

(ECF No. 269). Briefs were filed as required by the Court. (ECF Nos. 272, 274, 275).

3

In addition, on July 6, 2012, the Court requested further briefing on the issue of

4

whether the requested discovery would impose an undue burden or expense upon

5

Defendants. (ECF No. 276). Briefs on that issue also were filed as required by the

6

Court. (ECF Nos. 282, 284).
Status of the Case

7
8

Plaintiffs’ surviving claims include a claim for breach of the 2006 Amended

9

and Restated License Agreement between Trace Technologies, LLC and Snaptrack,

10

Inc. That claim is limited to allegations that Snaptrack took ownership of Locate’s

11

patents, copyrights and other intellectual property rights and filed patent

12

applications and patents without listing Locate as an assignee or Locate personnel as

13

inventors. (ECF Nos. 53 at 28; 252 at 22). Also surviving are Plaintiffs’ claims for

14

correction of inventorship pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256 (ECF No. 53 at 29); and, for

15

declaratory judgment of ownership interest in patents pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

16

(ECF No. 53 at 29-30).

17

As to the latter claims, it does not appear that Plaintiffs would be entitled to

18

any financial remedy. Under 35 U.S.C. § 256, the only available remedies are

19

correction, if the error in attribution was made without deceptive intent, or invalidity

20

of the affected patents. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaratory relief is the sole remedy.

21

Accordingly, the question before the Court is whether Plaintiffs may obtain discovery

22

of financial information from Defendants based upon their surviving contract claims.

23

The Requested Discovery

24

In dispute are Plaintiffs’ notice for deposition pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6)

25

and related requests for production of documents. Plaintiffs identified nine topics in

26

their Rule 30(b)(6) notice pertaining to Defendants’ licensing, valuation and revenues

27

for six patents owned by Defendants. Those patents, say Plaintiffs, were obtained or

28
-2-

08cv1992 AJB (MDD)

1
2
3

filed by Defendants in violation of the License Agreement between the parties.
In summary, Plaintiffs’ topic areas request deposition testimony and
documents reflecting:

4

1) the extent to which Defendants have licensed any of the six patents to

5

others, separately or in packages with other patents, and the nature of those

6

licenses;

7

2) the revenues received by Defendants for any licensing of any the six patents

8

or for patent packages including any of the six patents; and,

9

3) any valuation of the six patents by Defendants individually or as part of a

10

package.

11

Rather than assert specific objections, Defendants object to having to provide

12

any discovery in response to the requests. The essence of Defendants’ argument is

13

that Plaintiffs cannot succeed on their breach of contract claim because it actually is

14

based upon the dismissed claims of theft of trade secrets. And, even if Plaintiffs did

15

prevail, financial remedies are not available because Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment

16

claim has been dismissed and any financial remedy for the breach of contract is based

17

upon a theory of unjust enrichment. Consequently, say Defendants, Plaintiffs are not

18

entitled to the requested discovery.

19

Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to financial remedy in the event that

20

they prevail on their breach of contract claim and that a possible measure of damage

21

is the extent to which Defendants profited from the breach.

22

In addition to asserting that no damages discovery is warranted based upon

23

the posture of the case, Defendants assert that the production is unduly burdensome

24

as it would require Defendants to painstakingly parse hundreds of licensing

25

agreements and obtain permission from licensees to disclose the information.

26

Defendants assert that the burden is undue, in part, because of the likelihood that

27

Plaintiffs cannot prevail. (ECF No. 282).

28
-3-

08cv1992 AJB (MDD)

1

Plaintiffs, however, disclaim that they are seeking any licensing agreements or

2

identities of licensees. Instead, Plaintiffs assert that they will be satisfied without

3

the production of any specific licenses or the identification of any licensees.

4

Legal Standard

5

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery,

6

authorizing parties to obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is

7

relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, “[f]or good

8

cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter

9

involved in the action.” Id. Relevant information for discovery purposes includes any

10

information “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,”

11

and need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id. There is no requirement

12

that the information sought directly relate to a particular issue in the case. Rather,

13

relevance encompasses any matter that “bears on” or could reasonably lead to matter

14

that could bear on, any issue that is or may be presented in the case. Oppenheimer

15

Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 354 (1978). District courts have broad discretion

16

to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732,

17

751 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, district courts have broad discretion to limit discovery

18

where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be

19

obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less

20

expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Limits also should be imposed where the

21

burden or expense outweighs the likely benefits. Id.

22

Discussion

23

Plaintiffs are entitled to a remedy in the event that they prevail on their

24

breach of contract claims. See Cal.Civ.Code §3300. California law, in general,

25

provides for unjust enrichment damages in contract claims. See, e.g., Ajaxo, Inc. v.

26

E*Trade Group, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 21, 55-59 (Cal.Ct.App. 2005). In Ajaxo, the

27

Court of Appeals explained that the remedies for breach of contract include

28
-4-

08cv1992 AJB (MDD)

1

“damages” and “restitution.” The court explained that under California law the term

2

“restitution” is often synonymous with “unjust enrichment”. Id. at 55-56.

3

Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery regarding their theory of

4

recovery. The contract claims in this case, limited though they may be, have survived

5

summary judgment. Plaintiffs are entitled to pursue these claims and to pursue

6

damages as authorized by law. The Court is mindful that a Judge of this Court has

7

opined that Plaintiffs’ case is predicated upon trade secret theft and that all claims of

8

trade secret theft and unjust enrichment have been dismissed with prejudice.

9

Nonetheless, these limited contract claims have survived and some damages

10

discovery is warranted.

11

Defendants’ claim of undue burden is based primarily upon Defendants’

12

assertion that Plaintiffs cannot prevail. In addition, Defendants assert that culling

13

through numerous license agreements and notifying licensees, under the

14

circumstances, also is undue. Defendants have not asserted that the process would

15

be expensive, only burdensome. Inasmuch as Plaintiffs are not requiring the

16

production of any actual licenses or the identification of any licensees, some of

17

Defendants’ concerns are alleviated.

18

Specific objections are not before the Court - only the general objection that

19

damages discovery is not warranted. That objection by Defendants is

20

OVERRULED. Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery on their theory of damages for the

21

remaining breach of contract claims. To guide the process, the Court finds that

22

discovery in the three areas outlined above is appropriate. Defendants are not

23

required to produce any licensing documents nor identify any licensees. To the

24

extent that Defendants have documents that satisfy the requests, such documents

25

must be produced. Defendants also must produce for deposition appropriate persons

26

to respond to proper questions consistent with this Order.

27

The Court will rule on specific objections that survive a meet and confer and

28
-5-

08cv1992 AJB (MDD)

1

are presented in a joint motion.

2

Conclusion

3

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants objection to providing any financial

4

damages discovery to Plaintiffs is overruled. Defendants must provide discovery as

5

provided in this Order.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: August 2, 2012

8
9
10
11

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-

08cv1992 AJB (MDD)