Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00119/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00119-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DROPBOX INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:16-cv-00119-HSG (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 8/29/17 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 140

On August 29, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter regarding the propriety of Synchronoss’s 

rebuttal expert declaration in support of the joint claim construction statement. (Joint Letter, Dkt. 

No. 140.) In the undersigned’s July 31, 2017 order, the Court found that Markman-related expert 

declarations must be served with the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, in 

accordance with Patent Local Rule 4-3. (7/31/17 Order, Dkt. No. 135 at 1.) Specifically, the Court 

found that “Rule 4-2(b)’s requirement that all potential experts be identified—along with a 

description of the substance of the proposed testimony and any opinions to be rendered in 

connection with claim construction—should be sufficient to offer a rebuttal expert report.” Id. at 3. 

Thus, the Court found that “claim construction-related expert reports and declarations, if any, must 

be served by August 8, 2017, the Patent Local Rule 4-3 disclosure date.” Id.

On August 8, 2017, the parties filed the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing 

Statement, which included a supporting declaration from Dropbox expert Dr. Michael Freedman. 

Now, Synchronoss attempts to use the rebuttal declaration of Christopher Alpaugh to support its 

claim construction position, by arguing that Dropbox’s Rule 4-2 disclosures, which were served 

on July 14, 2017, were deficient on the grounds that they “failed to offer any ‘description of the 

substance of the proposed testimony.’” (Joint Letter at 2.) In opposition, Dropbox argues that this 

Case 4:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 141 Filed 09/05/17 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

is an attempt to contravene the Rule 4-3 deadline, because, if Synchronoss truly believed that 

Drobox’s earlier disclosures were deficient, Synchronoss should have said something before the 

August 8, 2017 deadline instead of waiting until August 25, 2017 to serve—without leave of

court—its rebuttal expert declaration. (Joint Letter at 4.) This is well taken. Indeed, in the July 

31, 2017 order, the undersigned expressly stated that “[i]f the parties believe they require more 

time for rebuttal, they are welcome to meet and confer on an alternate schedule. Any requests to 

alter the claim construction briefing schedule, however, must be approved by the presiding judge.” 

(7/31/17 Order at 3 n. 1.) 

Instead, the parties did not meet and confer prior to the August 8, 2017 deadline1nor did 

they receive approval from the presiding judge to extend the claim construction deadlines. As a 

result, Dropbox did not know that its 4-2 disclosures were apparently deficient until more than a 

month after they were served, and well after any opportunity to correct those perceived 

deficiencies had passed. The decision to wait and see the contents of Dr. Freedman’s declaration 

on August 8, 2017 was Synchronoss’s, and so it is only fair that Synchronoss bear the burden of 

that litigation strategy.

Accordingly, the Court denies Synchronoss’s request to strike portions of Dr. Freedman’s 

declaration, and grants Dropbox’s request to strike the declaration of Christopher Alpaugh.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1

Synchronoss’s willingness to produce its expert for deposition prior to the claim construction 

hearing is clearly prejudicial to Dropbox absent an extension of the claim construction deadlines, 

and the opportunity to submit its own rebuttal.

Case 4:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 141 Filed 09/05/17 Page 2 of 2