Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04977/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04977-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark 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

OPTRICS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARRACUDA NETWORKS INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-04977-RS (TSH)

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 189, 195

The Court held a telephonic hearing today on ECF Nos. 189 and 195, which concern 

Optrics’ amended Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice to Barracuda. The Court orders as follows:

Definitions 1, 3, 4 and 9. The definitions are sufficiently clear. Any assertion that the 

defined term includes irrelevant matters is really an objection to a topic.

Topic 1. This topic is relevant and proportional from 2013 to the present.

Topic 2. This topic is relevant and proportional from 2013 to the present.

Topic 3. Optrics has accepted Barracuda’s position.

Topic 4. This topic is overbroad and unfocused. 

Topic 5. This topic is relevant and proportional from 2013 to the present. It’s true that 

some of the marks are not specifically referred to in the Second Amended Complaint, but the SAC 

does allege a broad pattern of Barracuda registering marks that begin with the word “cuda,” see, 

e.g., SAC ¶ 47, and the ones mentioned in the deposition notice are just more of those.

Topic 6. This topic is relevant and proportional from 2013 to the present, except the Court 

strikes “or intent to adopt” from this topic.

Topic 7. Optrics accepts Barracuda’s position.

Topic 8. This topic is relevant and proportional from 2013 to the present.

Case 3:17-cv-04977-RS Document 208 Filed 01/29/20 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

Topic 9. Optrics accepts Barracuda’s position.

Topic 10. This topic is relevant and proportional, at least as to general topics. A Rule 

30(b)(6) designee can’t be expected to remember every detail of a nine-year business relationship.

Topic 11. This topic is irrelevant.

Topic 12. This topic is not relevant or proportional.

Topic 13. This topic is overbroad and not proportional.

Topic 14. This topic is relevant and proportional.

Topic 15. This topic is relevant and proportional. For this and the other topics, the Court 

is not ruling on any claims of attorney-client privilege.

Topic 16. This topic is overbroad and not proportional.

Topic 17. This topic is relevant and proportional.

Topic 18. This topic is relevant and proportional. No date restriction is required.

Topic 19. This topic is relevant and proportional.

Topic 20. This topic is irrelevant. It is outside the scope of Optrics’ claims as alleged in 

the SAC.

Topic 21. This topic is relevant and proportional.

Topic 22. This topic is relevant and proportional.

Topic 23. This topic is overbroad and vague.

Topic 24. This topic is relevant and proportional.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2020

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-04977-RS Document 208 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 2