Case3:12-cv-03877-VC Document62 Filed06/11/15 Page1 of 20 NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C. 1 Edward R. Nelson, III (Pro Hac Vice) 2 [email protected] Brent Nelson Bumgardner (Pro Hac Vice) 3 [email protected] Barry J. Bumgardner (Pro Hac Vice) 4 [email protected] Thomas Christopher Cecil (Pro Hac Vice) 5 [email protected] th 6 3131 West 7 Street, Suite 300 Fort Worth, Texas 76107 7 [Tel.] (817) 377-9111 [Fax] (817) 377-3485 8 BANYS, 9 P.C. Christopher D. Banys (SBN 230038) 10 [email protected] Jennifer Lu Gilbert (SBN 255820) 11 [email protected] 1032 Elwell Court, Suite 100 12 Palo Alto, California 94303 13 [Tel.] (650) 308-8505 [Fax] (650) 353-2202 14 Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 PHOENIX DIGITAL SOLUTIONS LLC 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED Case No. 3:12-cv-03877-VC (PSG) LLC, et al, 20 PDS’S MOTION TO Plaintiffs, COMPEL DISCOVERY 21 v. Hearing: 22 Date: August 11, 2015 Time: 10:00 a.m. 23 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Place: Courtroom 5, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Paul S. Grewal 24 AMERICA, INC., Defendants. 25 26 PDS’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 27 28 PDS’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Case No. 3:12-cv-03877-VC (PSG) Case3:12-cv-03877-VC Document62 Filed06/11/15 Page2 of 20 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ......................................................................................... 1 3 RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................................................................... 1 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................. 1 5 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 6 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2 7 III. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5 8 A. The Court Should Compel Samsung To Produce Technical and Damages 9 Discovery ....................................................................................................................... 5 10 1. PDS’S RFP Nos. 4, 6-12 and Samsung’s Objections and/or Answers ............. 5 11 2. Samsung Has Failed To Produce Technical or Damages Discovery .............. 10 12 B. Samsung Should Be Compelled To Produce Discovery From The ITC Investigation ................................................................................................................ 12 13 1. PDS’S RFP Nos. 1-3 and Samsung’s Objections and/or Answers ................. 12 14 2. Samsung Has Failed To Produce Documents from the ITC Investigation ..... 14 15 IV.CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 15 16 PDS’S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(1) ....................................... 17 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................................................................... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PDS’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ii Case No. 3:12-cv-03877-VC (PSG) Case3:12-cv-03877-VC Document62 Filed06/11/15 Page3 of 20 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Other Authorities: 3 Civil Local Rule 37-2 ................................................................................................................ 5 ,12 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) ................................................................................ 10-11 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)-(a)(1)(A)........................................................................... 11 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)............................................................................................. 1 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) ...................................................................................... 17 8 Patent Local Rule 3-1(c) ........................................................................................................ 3, 5, 10 9 Patent Local Rule 3-4 .................................................................................................................... 10 10 Patent Local Rule 3-4(a) ............................................................................................. 3-5, 10-11, 15 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PDS’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY iii Case No. 3:12-cv-03877-VC (PSG) Case3:12-cv-03877-VC Document62 Filed06/11/15 Page4 of 20 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 11, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon as the matter 4 may be heard by the Honorable Paul S. Grewal, in Courtroom 5, United States District Court for 5 the Northern District of California, Robert F. Peckham Federal Building, 280 South 1st Street, 6 San Jose, CA 95113, Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC (“PDS”) shall and hereby does move the 7 Court for an order compelling Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, 8 Inc. (“Samsung”) to produce certain documents in response to PDS’s First Set of Request For 9 Production Nos. 1-3 and PDS’s Second Set of Request For Production Nos. 4, 6-12. 10 PDS has filed concurrently a Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing on PDS’s 11 Motion to Compel Discovery. As detailed in that motion, PDS requests that the Court consider 12 this motion on an expedited basis to allow PDS time to analyze the compelled discovery so that it 13 can properly depose Samsung witness before the end of fact discovery on September 8, 2015. 14 RELIEF REQUESTED 15 PDS seeks an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) compelling Samsung to complete the 16 following discovery within five (5) business days of the Court’s Order: (1) discovery related to 17 technical issues in response to PDS’s Second Set of Request for Production (“Second Set of 18 RFP”) Nos. 6-12; (2) discovery related to damages in response to PDS’s Second Set of RFP No. 19 4; and (3) discovery from the ITC proceeding in response to PDS’s First Set of Request for 20 Production Nos. 1-3. 21 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 PDS seeks relief from Samsung’s deliberate refusal to timely and properly engage in fair 24 discovery. More specifically, PDS seeks an order to compel Samsung to produce discovery in 25 good faith in two main categories of information commonly sought in patent infringement 26 litigation (and indeed in most instances specifically required by the local patent rules), namely 27 technical documents for PDS’s infringement claims and financial information for PDS’s damages 28 claims. Further, PDS seeks production of relevant documents from International Trade PDS’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 1 Case No. 3:12-cv-03877-VC (PSG) Case3:12-cv-03877-VC Document62 Filed06/11/15 Page5 of 20 1 Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-853. Samsung should be compelled to produce such 2 highly relevant information because this information is responsive to PDS’s long-outstanding 3 discovery requests, and this information is necessary to establish the merits of PDS’s claims. 4 Samsung’s refusal to produce technical and damages related discovery is highly 5 prejudicial to PDS, particularly at this stage in the litigation when fact discovery ends in 6 approximately three months. Due to Samsung’s failure to provide adequate discovery, PDS finds 7 it difficult to proceed with any depositions of Samsung witnesses in this action due to the lack of 8 documents. Because fact discovery closes in a few months, PDS cannot afford any further delay 9 by Samsung in producing the technical and damages related discovery. As presented below, 10 Samsung’s discovery conduct has caused and will continue to cause PDS prejudice and 11 unnecessary litigation expense. Importantly, Samsung’s position has resulted in protracted and 12 unproductive discovery in this matter and otherwise unnecessary use of judicial resources. 13 Accordingly, PDS respectfully requests the Court’s Order compelling Samsung to cooperate and 14 produce PDS’s requested discovery forthwith. 15 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 16 PDS filed its Complaint (“the Complaint”) in this action on July 24, 2012, alleging 17 infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,440,749 (“the ’749 Patent”), 5,530,890 (“the ’890 Patent”), 18 and 5,809,336 (“the ’336 Patent”). Dkt. No. 1. 19 On September 27, 2012, the Court stayed this action until a final determination was 20 entered in International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-853 (“the ITC 21 Investigation”). Dkt. No. 12. In the ITC Investigation, certain Samsung products were accused 22 of infringing the ’336 Patent, including Samsung products accused of infringement in this action. 23 Declaration of Barry J. Bumgardner in Support of PDS’s Motion to Compel Discovery 24 (“Bumgardner Decl.”), ¶ 2. 25 The Initial Case Management Conference was held on November 18, 2014. Dkt. No. 22. 26 Samsung filed its Answer to the Complaint on December 18, 2014. Dkt. No. 24. 27 PDS served its Infringement Contentions to Samsung on January 20, 2015. Bumgardner 28 Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. 1. PDS’s Infringement Contentions specifically identify Samsung’s Accused PDS’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 2 Case No. 3:12-cv-03877-VC (PSG) Case3:12-cv-03877-VC Document62 Filed06/11/15 Page6 of 20 1 Instrumentalities, as disclosed in Table A.4 of Exhibit A of the Infringement Contentions. 2 Bumgardner Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. 2 at 31-54.