Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01048/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01048-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

REALTIME DATA, LLC d/b/a IXO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1048-BTM (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL

[DOC. NO. 1]

vs.

METROPCS TEXAS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel a third-party, Ortiva Wireless

(“Ortiva”), to comply with a subpoena for testimony and a subpoena for documents

issued pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45. (Doc. No. 1). The motion was filed on April 27,

2012. Ortiva responded on May 18, 2012. (Doc. No. 11). With leave of Court,

Plaintiff replied on May 23, 2012. (Doc. No. 16). Jurisdiction is proper in this Court

as the subject subpoenas were issued here. See Rule 45(c)(3)(A). 

Background

The underlying lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas and carries case number 6:10-cv-00493-LED. It is a patent

infringement action by Plaintiff against a number of wireless communication

companies including Sprint Nextel Corporation (“Sprint”). On July 7, 2011, Plaintiff

caused a subpoena duces tecum to be issued in this Court to Ortiva pursuant to Rule

- 1 - 12cv1048-BTM (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01048-GPC-MDD Document 17 Filed 05/25/12 Page 1 of 6
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

45. (Doc. No. 1-3, Exh. 4). Although documents have been produced, Plaintiff and

Ortiva are now at odds over whether additional production is required. As discussed

below, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with the subpoena duces tecum is

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

On March 6, 2012, Plaintiff caused a second subpoena to be issued to Ortiva in

this Court pursuant to Rule 45. This subpoena requires Ortiva to designate one or

more persons to provide testimony in particularly described matters. See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6). (Doc. No. 1-4, Exh. 14). Ortiva has not objected to this

subpoena and has not refused to make the appropriate designations and have one or

more person appear in connection with the subpoena. (Doc. No. 11 at 13). 

Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no dispute regarding the March 6, 2012,

subpoena. Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena is 

DENIED as premature. 

Discussion

Legal Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

and need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id. District courts have broad

discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296

F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, 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). Limits also should be imposed where the

burden or expense outweighs the likely benefits. Id.

- 2 - 12cv1048-BTM (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01048-GPC-MDD Document 17 Filed 05/25/12 Page 2 of 6
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

In addition to relevance, Rule 45 imposes a requirement upon the party or

attorney issuing the subpoena to “take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue

burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.” Rule 45(c)(1). In conducting

this analysis, “non-party status is a significant factor to be considered in determining

whether the burden imposed by a subpoena is undue.” Whitlow v. Martin, 263 F.R.D.

507, 512 (C.D. Ill. 2009). In Schaaf v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 233 F.R.D. 451,

453 (E.D.N.C. 2005), the district court explained that “in the context of evaluating

subpoenas issued to third parties, a court ‘will give extra consideration to the

objections of a non-party, non-fact witness in weighing burdensomeness versus

relevance.’” (citation omitted).

With that backdrop, the Court will proceed to the merits of the dispute

regarding the subpoena duces tecum. 

The Merits

The underlying dispute involves allegations that the Defendants infringed

Plaintiff’s patents by using certain data compression and data acceleration

technology in their communication networks. In connection with this motion,

Plaintiff asserts that defendant Sprint deployed technologies obtained from Ortiva in

its network. Plaintiff claims, in conclusory fashion, that it must obtain from Ortiva

deep technical data, including source code, in connection with proving its

infringement case against Sprint. Plaintiff asserts that the requested documents

deal directly with the various data compression products from Ortiva utilized in the

Sprint network and these products, when utilized in the Sprint network by Sprint,

allegedly infringe Plaintiff’s patents. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 6). There is no discussion

regarding how the use of Ortiva technology would tend to prove that Sprint infringed

Plaintiff’s patents. Ortiva is not a party and it has not been suggested that Ortiva

has infringed Plaintiff’s patents. Ortiva, however, has not challenged the subpoena

on grounds of relevance, relying instead primarily on the burden imposed in

producing its source code. 

- 3 - 12cv1048-BTM (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01048-GPC-MDD Document 17 Filed 05/25/12 Page 3 of 6
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

1. Request No. 1

Plaintiff seeks Ortiva documents “sufficient to show the features and

functionality of each Compression Server product or service provided to or used by

any Defendant.” (Doc. No. 1-3, Exh. 4 at 5). Ortiva claims to have produced

responsive documents. Plaintiff claims that the responses are insufficient and has

provided a list of issues that it would like addressed. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 8). The Court

finds that the detailed and technical information requested by Plaintiff in its list goes

well beyond its demand for documents “sufficient to show the features and

functionality” of Ortiva’s products used by Defendants. The term “features and

functionality,” the Court finds, is subjective and does not suggest the level of detail

sought by Plaintiff. As to this request, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. No

further response is required.

2. Request No. 3

Plaintiff seeks the production of “source code for each Compression Server

product or service provided to or used by any Defendant.” (Doc. No. 1-3, Exh.4 at 6). 

Ortiva objects on the grounds of burdensomeness asserting that its source code is a

highly confidential trade secret and one of the most valuable assets of Ortiva. (Doc.

No. 11 at 8). Ortiva argues that Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing of

necessity to support Ortiva’s production of the source code for its products. Plaintiff

argues that the source code is necessary to determine technical details regarding how

Ortiva’s products actually perform compression-related functions. Plaintiff asserts

that an element of one of the patent claims at issue in the underlying lawsuit recites

compressing the received data stream with a compression technique that includes a

plurality of encoders in a parallel stream. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 12). Ortiva claims that to

the extent that Plaintiff requires further technical explanations of its products, that

it can take the deposition, as has been noticed, of a knowledgeable Ortiva engineer. 

Plaintiff argues that source code is the best way to determine how a program

operates and that Ortiva’s concerns are mitigated by a protective order governing the

- 4 - 12cv1048-BTM (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01048-GPC-MDD Document 17 Filed 05/25/12 Page 4 of 6
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

underlying case.

The Court agrees with Ortiva that production of its source code constitutes an

undue burden. Ortiva is not a party and not alleged to be an infringer. Ortiva’s

concerns regarding the security of its source code, despite the protective order, cannot

be ignored. The Court agrees that a deposition of a knowledgeable Ortiva engineer

should be sufficient to inform Plaintiff regarding how Ortiva’s products work in the

Sprint network. As to this request, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. No

further response is required.

3. Request No. 6

Plaintiff seeks from Ortiva “[a]ll documents relating to the value, benefits or

advantages of each Compression Server product and service provided to or used by

any Defendant.” (Doc. No. 1-3, Exh. 4 at 6). Ortiva claims to have produced its

responsive documents and also claims that Sprint has produced documents that

would be responsive. Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to Ortiva’s full response

regardless of any production from Sprint. Plaintiff asserts that the documents are

relevant to the extent that they would shed light on Sprint’s internal cost structures

and decision to implement the Ortiva technologies. Although the relevance appears

marginal, at best, Ortiva has not objected on those grounds. Plaintiff is entitled to

these documents from Ortiva even if identical documents have been produced by

Sprint. As to this request, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. All responsive

documents must be produced.

4. Request No. 7

Plaintiff seeks from Ortiva return-on-investment documents relating to its

Compression Server products. Ortiva objects and claims that it is has no responsive

documents regarding the products and services deployed at Sprint. This is a

sufficient response. As to this request, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. No

further response is required. 

- 5 - 12cv1048-BTM (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01048-GPC-MDD Document 17 Filed 05/25/12 Page 5 of 6
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

5. Request No. 8

Plaintiff seeks from Ortiva documents relating to data traffic reduction

analysis for its Compression Server products. Ortiva objects and claims that it is has

no responsive documents regarding the products and services deployed at Sprint. 

This is a sufficient response. As to this request, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is

DENIED. No further response is required. 

6. Request No. 9

Plaintiff seeks from Ortiva documents relating to any cost of ownership

savings analysis for its Compression Server products. Ortiva objects and claims that

it is has no responsive documents regarding the products and services deployed at

Sprint. This is a sufficient response. As to this request, Plaintiff’s motion to compel

is DENIED. No further response is required. 

Conclusion

The Court DENIES as premature Plaintiff’s motion to compel regarding the

deposition subpoena served upon Ortiva. The Court GRANTS IN PART AND

DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the subpoena

duces tecum served upon Ortiva as provided above. To the extent that the Court has

ordered additional documents to be produced, such production must occur within

fourteen (14) days of the date of the Order, absent further Order of this Court. 

Ortiva’s request that Plaintiff be required to reimburse Ortiva for costs and fees

incurred in responding to this motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 25, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 6 - 12cv1048-BTM (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01048-GPC-MDD Document 17 Filed 05/25/12 Page 6 of 6