Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00629/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00629-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANOKIWAVE, INC., a Delaware 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

GABRIEL REBEIZ, an individual; 

SPECTRABEAM, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company; TUMAY 

KANAR, an individual; SAMET ZIHIR, 

an individual; INTEGRATED DEVICE 

TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware 

corporation; and DOES 1-20 inclusive

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00629-JLSMDD

ORDER ON JOINT 

MOTIONS FOR 

DISCOVERY DISPUTES

[ECF Nos. 70, 74, 81, 85]

Before the Court are four joint motions for determination of various 

discovery disputes. At issue are approximately one hundred requests for 

discovery propounded by both parties. 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 21
2 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain 

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s 

claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” FED. R. CIV.

P. 26(b)(1). “Information within the scope of discovery need not be 

admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. District courts have 

broad discretion to limit discovery where the discovery sought is 

“unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some 

other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less 

expensive.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Courts have broad discretion to 

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

732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). 

An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired of 

under Rule 26(b). FED. R. CIV. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must 

answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate objections with 

specificity or, to the extent the interrogatory is not objected to, by 

“answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under oath.” FED. R. CIV. P.

33(b). The responding party has the option in certain circumstances to 

answer an interrogatory by specifying responsive records and making 

those records available to the interrogating party. FED. R. CIV. P. 33(d). 

Courts “will generally find [interrogatories] overly broad and 

unduly burdensome on their face to the extent they ask for every fact

which supports identified allegations.” Hiskett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 

180 F.R.D. 403, 404-05 (D. Kan. 1998). “[T]o the extent Plaintiff seeks 

every minute detail and narratives about the subject incident . . ., 

written discovery is not the proper vehicle to obtain such detail.” 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 21
3 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Bashkin v. San Diego County, No. 08-cv-1450-WQH-WVG, 2011 WL 

109229, *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2011).

A party may request the production or inspection of any document 

within the scope of Rule 26(b). FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a). “For each item or 

category, the response must either state that inspection and related 

activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the 

request, including the reasons.” Rule 34(b)(2)(B). An objection must 

state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis 

of that objection. Rule 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must 

specify the part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. The 

responding party is responsible for all items in “the responding party’s 

possession, custody, or control.” Rule 34(a)(1). Actual possession, 

custody or control is not required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to 

produce a document in the possession of a non-party entity if that party 

has a legal right to obtain the document or has control over the entity 

who is in possession of the document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 

F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 

DISCUSSION

A. ECF No. 70: Defendant SpectraBeam’s Requests for 

Production

a. RFP Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6

Through its RFPs, SpectraBeam seeks what appear to be different 

visual representations of the chips named in Plaintiff’s Complaint and 

Trade Secret Statement (“Chips at issue”) as of August 14, 2016, the date 

Dr. Rebeiz resigned from the Anokiwave Advisory Board. Each category

of document illustrates different levels of technical detail for each

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 21
4 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

individual chip. Generally, the requests seek mask works, fabrication 

masks (in native gds file format), layouts, physical floor plans, and 

detailed schematics. 

The crux of the dispute appears to be that Plaintiff has provided 

block diagrams of the chips at issue, which it alleges are sufficient to 

prove or disprove its trade secrets claims. Plaintiff explains that block 

diagrams are a high-level conceptual representation of the chips that 

illustrate the relationship between individual components. The masks, 

layouts, floor plans, and schematics, on the other hand, provide discrete 

technical details of the chips. 

Through this dispute, Plaintiff confirms that it does not allege that 

Defendants misappropriated the technical details of its chips’ component 

parts. Rather, Plaintiff claims Defendants misappropriated the unique 

combination of components and features that are present on each chip 

and that are sufficiently illustrated in the block diagrams. Thus, 

Plaintiff claims that because technical details are not alleged as trade 

secrets, they are therefore irrelevant and not subject to discovery. 

Plaintiff also argues that the dismissal of its mask work infringement 

claims renders the requests for technical data moot. 

Defendants disagree and claim the highly detailed technical 

documents they requested are necessary for their expert to complete a 

technical comparison of the chips at issue. Defendants recognize that 

Plaintiff claims its trade secrets are embodied in the combination of 

features in each chip and not in the technical details of each component

part. However, they also claim Plaintiff has not sufficiently committed 

to that position. 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 21
5 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff’s Trade Secret Statement describes 43 separate trade 

secrets. The identified secrets relevant to these requests are clearly

described as chips utilizing the “Coupling Solution” and/or “Fast Beam 

Steering Technology” and as having a unique architecture and 

combination of features for use on a single microchip. (ECF No. 70-2). 

Defendants’ motion to compel further responses is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s trade secret statement describes its trade secrets as single 

microchips with a combination of specific features. Defendant fails to 

explain how the technical details of the component parts are relevant to 

the claims and trade secrets as alleged by Plaintiff. 

b. RFP Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14

SpectraBeam seeks “[d]ocuments sufficient to show the details of” 

specific components of the chips at issue as of August 14, 2016 including 

the phase shifter, gain control functions (or Variable Gain Amplifier), 

RF-system lineup, packaging, temperature sensor, and temperature 

compensation in the radio frequency lineup.” 

Defendants’ arguments echo those made in the previous group of 

requests as to why the technical details of the chips at issue are relevant. 

As discussed above, a review of the Trade Secret Statement makes clear 

that Plaintiff is not claiming the technical details of these individual 

components as a trade secret. Defendants’ position that the technical 

details are still relevant is not persuasive. Defendants’ motion to compel 

production of the technical details of specific components of the chips at 

issue is DENIED. 

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 21
6 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c. RFP Nos. 47-57 

Through these requests, SpectraBeam seeks documents related to 

any mask work applications filed by Plaintiff, communications with the 

Copyright Officer concerning mask work applications, and documents 

supporting Anokiwave’s mask work infringement claims. Defendants 

argue that the mask work applications will show whether Plaintiff’s 

mask works were found to be original or commonly known by the 

Copyright Office. Plaintiff argues the mask works and mask work 

applications are no longer relevant because it dismissed the mask work 

infringement claims. Plaintiff also explains that “mask works” is a legal 

term and is synonymous with layouts. 

In light of the finding that Defendants have failed to demonstrate 

the mask works are relevant and all mask work infringement claims 

have been dismissed, Defendants’ motion to compel is DENIED. 

B. ECF No. 74: Defendant SpectraBeam’s Interrogatories and 

RFPs, and Defendant Rebeiz’s Interrogatories

a. SpectraBeam’s Interrogatories 4, 6, and 14

SpectraBeam’s disputed interrogatories are related and will be 

considered together. Interrogatories Four and Six seek all documents 

supporting the claim that the persons Plaintiff identified invented or 

developed each claimed trade secret and ask Plaintiff to describe in 

detail how the identified persons invented or developed each trade 

secret. Interrogatory 14 asks Plaintiff to identify all facts supporting its 

contention that each claimed trade secret is unique, novel, or otherwise 

distinguishable from unprotected public knowledge or information 

generally known to persons in the relevant field. Plaintiff objects on 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 21
7 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

grounds that all three requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

vague, ambiguous, and compound. 

The Court agrees that each of the three requests are overbroad, 

cumulative, and compound. Plaintiff previously designated eighteen 

people who were involved in inventing or developing one or more of the 

43 claimed trade secrets. Requiring Plaintiff to respond to the requests 

as to each of the eighteen persons identified and addressing each of the 

43 identified secrets in a single interrogatory is improper and unduly 

burdensome. Defendants’ motion to compel further responses is 

DENIED. 

b. SpectraBeam’s RFP Nos. 37, 38, 43

RFP 37 seeks documents to show “every instance in which 

Anokiwave, or any of its engineers, founders, or executives, has designed 

a radio frequency integrated chip, with or without basing the design on 

one or more pre-existing intellectual property blocks, in approximately 

12 months or less.” Plaintiff objects on grounds that the request is 

overbroad, vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to “radio frequency 

integrated chips” and “with or without basing the design on one or more 

pre-existing intellectual property blocks.” 

This request is overbroad and not proportional to needs of the case. 

A response would require Plaintiff to determine if any of its employees 

had ever (in their career and not limited in time) designed any radio 

frequency chip in less than 12 months. This would also necessarily 

includes chips not at issue here. Defendants’ motion to compel is 

DENIED as to RFP 37. 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 21
8 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RFP 38 seeks all Anokiwave Advisory Board records, including 

correspondence, meeting agendas, minutes, recordings and so forth, for 

time when Rebeiz served on the board. Plaintiff agreed to produce all 

non-privileged, responsive documents received by Defendant Rebeiz in 

his role as member of advisory board, as well as communications

between Anokiwave and one or more of its Advisory Board Members 

relating to “Anokiwave’s development of RF chips, claimed trade secrets, 

and claimed proprietary information.” Defendants argue this is not 

sufficient because they want all Advisory Board records. Defendants 

make no argument as to why all the Advisory Board records are relevant. 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s response is sufficient. Defendants’ motion to 

compel is DENIED as to RFP 38. 

RFP 43 seeks all documents to support allegations that Plaintiff

acted in reliance on Rebeiz’s alleged representations that “all proprietary 

information would remain confidential and the exclusive property of 

Anokiwave.” Plaintiff agreed to produce the Proprietary Information 

Agreement. Defendants’ argue further response is required because it is 

not clear whether Plaintiff relied on any other documents. Plaintiff

stated that it has already agreed to produce all communications it had 

with Rebeiz and so there is nothing left to compel.

If Plaintiff has other documents that show its reliance on Rebeiz’s 

agreement to not disclose confidential information or use it, it must be 

disclosed. If they have disclosed everything as they state, then that is 

sufficient. Defendants’ motion to compel is DENIED as to RFP 39.

///

/// 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 21
9 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c. Defendant Rebeiz’s Interrogatories 6, 7, and 8

Rebeiz’s interrogatories six, seven, and eight are similar and will be 

discussed together. Interrogatory Six asks Plaintiff what percentage of 

Anokiwave’s outstanding shares are owned by Rebeiz. Interrogatory 

Seven asks what percentage of Anokiwave’s outstanding shares are 

“owned by each prior or current member of the Anokiwave Advisory 

Board.” Finally, Interrogatory Eight asks Plaintiff to identify the 

amount and date of compensation, including stock options, shares, loans, 

wages, stipends, and honoraria, that Anokiwave has paid or offered to 

pay every member of Anokiwave’s Advisory Board.

Plaintiff answered interrogatory six stating that Rebeiz was 

awarded 100,000 stock options and exercised 38,543 of those options. 

Plaintiff objected to interrogatories seven and eight arguing they are 

compound, vague, overly broad, not relevant, and implicate the privacy 

interests of third parties.

Defendant argues the percentage of shares requested in numbers 

six and seven are relevant because Plaintiff “repeatedly emphasized the 

number of shares” Rebeiz owned in its Complaint and that a percentage 

is needed for context and is relevant to both liability and damages. 

Defendant also argues the information about other board members’ 

compensation gives “relevant factual context” in response to Plaintiff’s 

claim that Rebeiz tricked Anokiwave into giving him stock. 

The Court fails to see how the percentage of shares owned by all 

former and current board members as well as their compensation is 

relevant to either liability or damages or any other claim or defense. 

Defendants’ motion to compel is DENIED. 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 21
10 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C. ECF No. 81: Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests1

a. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories to Defendants SpectraBeam 

and Rebeiz 1-9 and 14-22

Plaintiff propounded identical interrogatories to both SpectraBeam 

and Rebeiz. Interrogatories 1-9 request Defendant to “identify with 

specificity (or by your best estimate)” the number of hours spent by “any 

and all representatives of Spectrabeam” in research and development of 

specified chips. Interrogatories 14-22 request Defendant to describe or 

give a timeline of research and development for specified chips. 

The dispute underlying these requests relates to which chips are at 

issue in this litigation and, as a result, what information can be 

discovered about each parties’ chips. Specifically, interrogatories 1-4 and 

14-17 ask about ku-band chips. Plaintiff’s Trade Secret Statement and 

the operative Complaint state that only its ka-band chips are at issue. 

Neither document mentions ku-band chips. Plaintiff argues that they 

are still entitled to the information about ku-band chips as it could lead 

to information about the extent of Defendants’ alleged misappropriation 

and resulting unjust enrichment.

The information related to ku-band chips is not relevant. Plaintiff 

specifically identified chips that were at issue in their Fifth Amended 

Complaint and the Third Trade Secret Statement. Plaintiff claims that 

the Trade Secrete Statement and Complaint do not limit discovery into 

other unnamed chips. However, this is the exact opposite of what 

Plaintiff argues in refusing to turn over certain information requested by

 

1 Plaintiff has propounded identical or nearly identical discovery requests to 

one or more Defendants. In those cases, the requests are discussed together. 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 21
11 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants. Plaintiff cannot have it both ways. Absent any allegation 

that Defendants’ misappropriated Plaintiff’s trade secret information in 

their Ku-band chips, the information is not relevant to this litigation. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response is DENIED. 

Interrogatories 5-9 and 18-22, on the other hand, seek information 

about the chips identified in Plaintiff’s pleadings. Plaintiff’s amended 

responses lay out a timeline and rough estimate of hours spend in some 

stages of development for the identified chips. The timelines begin in 

2012 and include the work done during Defendant Zihir’s and Kanar’s 

doctoral studies. Defendants explain that the development of their chips 

happened over the course of years and that hour logs of time spent on 

each phase or each individual chip were not kept. 

Defendants state that detailed hour logs do not exist and are not 

generally kept in academia. Defendants cannot produce what does not 

exist. The lengthy explanations describe the general process and include 

some rough hours estimate. These responses are sufficient given 

Defendants verification that nothing more exists. Plaintiff’s motion o 

compel is DENIED. 

b. Plaintiff’s RFPs to Defendants Zihir, Kanar, Rebeiz, 

and SpectraBeam

i. RFP Nos. 13-16 as to Individual Defendants and 

SpectraBeam

Through identical interrogatories to the individual Defendants and 

SpectraBeam, Plaintiff seeks all documents and communications 

regarding the founding or plans to found a company with goods or 

services relating to RF chips, including SpectraBeam. Defendants

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 21
12 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

initially stated they are withholding documents based on their lengthy 

standard objections.

It appears from this motion that after the amended responses were 

served, lengthy meet and confers took place and Plaintiff’s Trade Secret 

Statement was amended. Through that process, various limitations were 

proposed and accepted that limited these disputed requests in time and 

breadth. It also appears that after these negotiations, Defendants served 

responsive documents as to SpectraBeam and stated that it does not 

have any responsive documents concerning other entities. Plaintiff’s 

concern appears to be that it is not confident that Defendants have in 

fact turned over all responsive documents subject to the limitations the 

parties agreed upon. If Defendants have produced all responsive 

documents in their possession, the responses are sufficient. If Defendant 

is withholding responsive documents, it must produce them. 

ii. RFP Nos. 21-22 as to Individual Defendants

RFP No. 21 seeks documents sufficient to identify past, present, or 

future ownership interest in any company. Through the meet and confer 

process, and in response to Defendants’ objections, Plaintiff proposed 

limiting the request to “documents relating to the founding or plans to 

found a company with goods or services related to RF chips, including 

SpectraBeam or any other entity that could utilize information obtained 

from Anokiwave commercially and in which you expected to be an owner, 

founder, shareholder, or other financial beneficiary.” Plaintiff claims 

Defendant accepted the limitation but failed to amend its response. 

RFP No. 22 seeks all documents relating to communications 

relating to any past, present, or future ownership interest in any 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 21
13 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

company owned or founded by Kanar or Zihir. Plaintiff proposed the 

same limitations as discussed in RFP No. 21, which Defendant accepted. 

The Court fails to see how these requests as amended differ from RFP 

Nos. 13-16 discussed above. If documents are being withheld, they must 

be produced as agreed upon. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. 

iii. RFP Nos. 25-26 as to Rebeiz and SpectraBeam

RFPs 25 and 26 seek all documents and communications relating to 

the purchase, sale, funding or funding for development of RF chips. 

Defendants object on grounds of relevance and proportionality. To the 

extent Plaintiff’s requests seek all documents and information about RF 

chips that are not at issue in this litigation, the request is fatally 

overbroad. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED. 

iv. RFP No. 27 as to Individual Defendants and 

SpectraBeam

RFP No. 27 seeks all documents relating to communications

relating to any merger, purchase, sale, or investment between 

SpectraBeam and IDT, including any offers to engage in similar 

transactions or negotiations. Defendants object on general grounds but 

agreed to produce: (1) the due diligence files SpectraBeam provided to 

IDT; (2) the acquisition contract between IDT and SpectraBeam; and (3)

documents to demonstrate what each individual Defendant received in 

connection with the sale of substantially all of SpectraBeam’s assets to 

IDT. 

In its position statement, Plaintiff explains the communications 

between SpectraBeam and IDT regarding the acquisition and 

negotiations leading up to the actual sale are probative to its claims that

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 21
14 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IDT was aware that Defendants had incorporated one or more of 

Anokiwave’s trade secrets into its products. Defendant’s position 

statement claims it is producing the relevant non-privileged documents 

identified in Plaintiff’s position statement. To the extent that Defendant 

has in fact done so, its response is sufficient. If Defendant has failed to 

produce communications as discussed in Plaintiff’s position statement, it 

must do so now. 

v. RFP Nos. 31-33 as to Individual Defendants and 

Nos. 38-40 as to SpectraBeam

RFPs 31-33 seek “all documents relating to technology, trade 

secrets, or know how that [Drs. Zihir, Kanar, and Rebeiz] transferred to 

IDT.” To the extent the requests seeks all documents relating to any 

technology or “know how” and is without a time limitation, it is 

overbroad. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. 

vi. RFP Nos. 34-35, and 49-50 as to Individual 

Defendants and Nos. 41-42 and 56-57 as to 

SpectraBeam

RFPs 34-35 and 41-42 seek all documents and communications 

relating to the design, manufacturing, specification, development, or 

testing of RF chips by the individual defendants or SpectraBeam. RFPs 

49-50 and 56-57 seek all documents and communications relating to the 

funding of RF chips similar to Anokiwave RF chips. Defendants object 

arguing the requests are overbroad in that they seek information about 

all RF chips and that the phrase “RF chips similar to Anokiwave RF 

chips” is overbroad as to time. 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 21
15 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Court agrees that both requests are overbroad to the extent the 

seek all documents and seek information about RF chips not at issue in 

this litigation. Defendants’ amended responses agreed to produce all 

responsive non-privileged documents relating to the chips at issue. This 

is sufficient. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED. 

vii. RFP Nos. 54, 56 as to Individual Defendants and 

Nos. 61 as to SpectraBeam

RFP Nos. 54 and 61 seek documents to identify all employees, 

consultants, or contractors who have worked on the research, 

development, design, or manufacturing of SpectraBeam’s RF chips. 

Defendants’ amended responses state that only Dr. Kanar and Dr. Zihir 

designed and developed the chips and SpectraBeam did not have any 

employees. Plaintiff was not satisfied with this response. In Defendants’ 

position statement it confirms that Drs. Kanar and Zihir were the only 

members of the design team and no consultants or contractors were 

involved. This is sufficient. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further 

responses is DENIED. Defendants should consider whether a deposition 

of Plaintiff under Rule 30(b)(6) is the better vehicle to obtain this 

information. 

RFP No. 56 seeks all employment or contractor agreements 

between Defendant Rebeiz and IDT. In its amended response, 

Defendant agreed to produce his consulting agreement with IDT. 

Plaintiff argues that this response is incomplete because it does not 

identify whether any other consultant or contractor agreements exist. 

The Court fails to see how other agreements would be responsive to this 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 21
16 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

request. Defendant produced the agreement. This response is sufficient. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED. 

///

c. RFP Nos. 29 and 33-36 as to Defendant SpectraBeam

RFP Nos. 29, 33, 34, and 35 are similar and will be discussed 

together. RFP No. 29 seeks communications relating to offers or 

potential offers from third parties for the merger or acquisition of 

SpectraBeam. RFP Nos. 33 and 34 seek all formal or informal valuations 

relating to the sale of SpectraBeam to IDT. And RFP No. 35 seeks all 

agreements relating to IDT’s assumption of either the assets or liabilities 

of SpectraBeam. 

Defendants have agreed and confirmed through this joint motion 

that they are producing all responsive documents that are not subject to 

a non-disclosure agreement. This is sufficient. Plaintiff’s motion to 

compel is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s RFP No. 36 seeks “all final agreements between 

[SpectraBeam] and IDT.” Defendant states it is withholding documents 

based on its objections that the request is overbroad. Defendant 

confirms that it produced the final acquisition agreement between 

SpectraBeam and IDT. Plaintiff argues further response is required 

because there may be other final agreements between SpectraBeam and 

IDT. Plaintiff fails to provide insight as to what types of agreements it 

seeks or the relevance of other agreements to its claims. Defendant 

claims to have produced what was requested. If that is the case, 

Defendant’s response is sufficient and no further response is required. 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 21
17 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

D. ECF No. 85: Defendant Spectrabeam’s RFPs and Defendant 

IDT’s Interrogatories

a. RFP No. 73

RFP No. 73 seeks “documents sufficient to identify alleged beginning 

and end dates of secrecy of claimed trade secrets.” Plaintiff has or will 

produce documents to identify alleged end dates of secrecy for each 

claimed trade secret. However, Plaintiff objects to identifying a 

beginning date on grounds that it assumes that there are specific dates 

on which alleged secrecy of any information sprang into existence. 

Plaintiff further argues that the beginning of secrecy is not relevant to 

any claim or defense because all it must prove is whether the 

information was secret at the time of the alleged misappropriation. 

Defendants argue Plaintiff’s response is not sufficient because the 

beginning date is essential to show that the information was public or 

readily ascertainable. 

Plaintiff’s response is sufficient. Even if a beginning date of secrecy 

were relevant, Plaintiff has explained that the claimed trade secrets 

developed over a significant period of time through the collaboration of 

many individuals rendering them incapable of identifying specific dates 

that the information became secret. Plaintiff is correct regarding its 

burden. No further response is required.

b. RFP No. 76 and 77

Through these RFPs, Defendant seeks all “communications, including 

but not limited to public announcements, job listings, and person to 

person communications, disclosing engineering skill sets required for 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 21
18 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Anokiwave engineering positions [RFP No. 76] and describing 

Anokiwave’s business [RFP No. 77] from 2013-2017.” 

Plaintiff objects on grounds that the requests seek information that is 

publicly available and overbroad because they conceivably include every 

communication Anokiwave had from 2013-2017. The Court agrees the 

requests as worded are fatally overbroad. However, Defendants clarify 

in this motion that they are seeking “non-confidential external job 

announcements [for Anokiwave engineering positions and job 

announcements describing Anokiwave’s business plans] from 2013 to 

2017.” Plaintiff does not object to producing these documents. Plaintiff 

must produce documents responsive to Defendants’ narrowed request. 

c. RFP No. 78

Defendants seek “all due diligence documents Anokiwave provided to 

any company or individual, including but not limited to IDT, from 

January 1, 2013 to the present.” 

Plaintiff objects on grounds that the request is overbroad and 

disproportionate to the needs of the case. Plaintiff also states that it did 

not make any disclosure of any of its claimed trade secrets with the 

protection of a nondisclosure agreement. Defendants argue this 

information is relevant because the disclosures are likely to include 

information about Plaintiff’s claimed trade secrets and if that 

information as disclosed with or without confidentiality it may show 

whether Plaintiff suffered harm. 

Plaintiff states it has agreed to produce all documents demonstrating 

when trade secret information was made publicly available prior to 

Rebeiz’s resignation. Plaintiff also attested that no documents exist 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 21
19 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

showing disclosures of trade secrets that were not made subject to a 

confidentiality agreement. Plaintiff has also agreed to produce profit and 

loss statements, and documents to calculate damages in response to 

other RFPs. To the extent this RFP requests the same documents, it is 

duplicative. To the extent it seeks complete disclosures of unrelated 

financial and technical information, it is overbroad. No further response 

is required. 

d. RFP No. 79

Defendants seek documents “sufficient to show all versions of 

Anokiwave’s complete external website from January 1, 2013 to the 

present, including but not limited to the content and timing of all 

changes, revisions, additions, and deletions.”

Plaintiff objects that the request is overbroad. Defendant contends 

that information that Anokiwave publicly displayed cannot have been 

secret. At a minimum it will show end date of trade secrets. It is 

undisputed that Anokiwave publicly posted “spec sheets” disclosing most 

of its claimed trade secrets about the chips at issue. This is the end date 

of secrecy and Plaintiff has agreed to produce this information in 

response to other RFPs. Defendants state this request is “designed to 

test the accuracy of Anokiwave’s interrogatory response against 

Anokiwave’s promotional website materials, which may have 

inadvertently signaled its product line or business plans to the relevant 

field.”

Although some archived information on the website could be relevant, 

seeking documents to show every change or update to a website for six 

years is massively overbroad. No response is required. 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

 21
20 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e. IDT Interrogatories 2, 3, and 4 (damages)

IDT propounds contention interrogatories asking Plaintiff to 

identify “all facts” that support Plaintiff’s claims that it suffered damage 

as a result of Defendants’ conduct, to identify the dates any alleged 

damaged was suffered, and to identify all facts that support any ongoing 

claims of damage. 

Plaintiff objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek 

“all facts” resulting in each request being unduly burdensome. Plaintiff 

also argues the requests are premature because substantial discovery 

remains to be conducted. Defendants contend that during meet and 

confers, the parties limited the requests to “material facts” about 

Anokiwave’s claimed damages although Plaintiff maintains that the 

limitation to “material facts” does nothing to render the interrogatory 

less burdensome.

Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs contention 

interrogatories which seek to discover the factual basis for allegations in 

a complaint. Rule 33(a)(2) provides that an interrogatory is not 

objectionable merely because it asks for contentions that relate to fact or 

the application of law to fact. Rule 33(a)(2). A court may order that a 

party does not need to answer a contention interrogatory until 

designated discovery is complete or at some later time. Rule 33(a)(2).

Courts generally disfavor contention interrogatories asked before 

discovery is undertaken. Tennison v. City & County of San Francisco, 

226 F.R.D. 615, 618 (N.D.Cal.2005). In fact, courts tend to deny 

contention interrogatories filed before substantial discovery has taken 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 20 of

 21
21 No. 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

place, but grant them if discovery almost is complete. See, e.g., Fischer & 

Porter Co. v. Tolson, 143 F.R.D. 93, 95 (E.D.Pa.1992). 

Defendants’ contention interrogatories are premature at this stage 

of discovery in that they seek support for Plaintiff’s claim of damages. 

Additionally, pursuant to Rule 26, because the contention interrogatories 

seek “all facts” supporting Plaintiff’s allegations, they are overly broad 

and unduly burdensome on their face. See FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(2)(C) 

(stating that the court must limit discovery if the burden of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit). 

There is no dispute that Plaintiff must disclose this information. 

The Federal Rules require Plaintiff in its initial disclosures to provide “a 

computation of each category of damages claimed . . . and to make 

available documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or 

protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based.” 

FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). It may be more appropriate to explore the 

validity of such disclosures through a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. However, 

any compelled response to an interrogatory at this early stage will most 

certainly be incomplete. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion

to compel is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 89 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 21 of

 21