Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03835/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-03835-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

RADWARE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. TELEPACIFIC CORP. D/B/A TPX 

COMMUNICATIONS,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-03835-LHK (SVK)

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 

DISPUTES

Re: Dkts. No. 68, 71

Before the Court are the parties’ respective motions to compel, submitted by joint letter 

briefs. Dkts. 68, 71. Defendant TPX Communications (“TPX”) moves to compel production of 

documents relating to customer complaints received by Plaintiff Radware, Inc. (“Radware”). Dkt. 

68. Radware moves to compel production of documents relating to communications between TPX 

and third-party Arbor Networks, Inc. (“Arbor Networks”). Dkt. 71.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

In brief, Radware is a provider of distributed denial-of-service (“DDoS”) mitigation 

systems; TPX is a user of such systems. Dkt. 68. In 2017, Radware and TPX entered into 

negotiations which culminated in a purchase order from TPX to Radware for the purchase and 

installation of a DDoS mitigation system. See Dkt. 1. The purchase price was $2,000,000.00 and 

was to be paid in quarterly installments over a two-year period. Id. ¶ ¶ 8-10. TPX made the first 

three payments in the amount of $375,000.00. Id. ¶ 19. TPX claims that the system did not 

function properly and ceased further payments. See Dkt. 46. Arbor Networks is a competitor of 

Radware. Dkt. 71. Arbor Networks was also TPX’s provider of DDoS systems both prior to and 

after TPX’s relationship with Radware. Id. 

Radware filed suit in December 2018 alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of 

Case 5:19-cv-03835-LHK Document 72 Filed 03/24/20 Page 1 of 4
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

good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. See Dkt. 1. Radware seeks 

damages in the amount of $1,625,000.00 and disgorgement. Id. at 12-13. TPX responded and 

asserted 24 affirmative defenses which are primarily directed to contract claims. Dkt. 46. TPX 

also asserted counterclaims; those that remain are: negligent misrepresentation, intentional 

misrepresentation, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Dkt. 64. TPX’s counterclaims arise 

out of a specific representation made by Radware to TPX in an October 2016 email comparing the 

Radware DDoS system to that of Arbor Networks. Id. 

II. TPX MOTION TO COMPEL

TPX’s motion arises out of two overlapping requests for production (“RFPs”), both of 

which seek documents relating to complaints received by Radware from customers other than 

TPX regarding the Radware DDoS system. Dkt. 68-2. Radware objected to the requests as both 

irrelevant and not in proportion to the needs of the case. Id. TPX argues that what Radware knew 

about faults in its product are relevant to TPX’s misrepresentation claims and/or its affirmative 

defenses. Dkt. 68 at 2-3. The Court disagrees. 

The disputes at hand – Radware’s complaint and TPX’s counterclaim – are quite narrow in 

scope. Radware’s claims are limited to claims sounding in contract only. Not surprisingly, TPX’s 

affirmative defenses also primarily sound in contract. Only affirmative defenses nos. 5 

(acceptance based on misrepresentation of fact); 12 (Plaintiff’s wrongful conduct as proximate 

cause of harm); and 14 (unclean hands) suggest some conduct of Radware other than its 

contractual obligations might be at issue. However, these affirmative defenses identify no facts 

upon which they may be based. The Court looks to TPX’s counterclaims, which do address 

misrepresentation. However, each surviving counterclaim, as plead, is limited in scope to 

Radware’s representation to TPX in October 2016 regarding the comparison of Radware’s product 

to that of Arbor Networks. There are no claims based upon Radware’s knowledge of problems 

with its DDoS system or relating to misrepresentations by Radware to the market at large that 

would warrant the deep dive into customer histories that would be required to respond to RFPs 33 

and 34. The Court considered if the documents requested were produced, which claim or 

affirmative defense would they support? The answer is none. 

Case 5:19-cv-03835-LHK Document 72 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Accordingly, the requests are overbroad and not in proportion to the needs of the case. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). TPX’s motion to compel is therefore DENIED. 

III. RADWARE MOTION TO COMPEL

Radware’s motion arises out of eight RFPs directed to documents and communications 

between TPX and its former and subsequent provider of DDoS mitigation systems, Arbor 

Networks. Dkt. 71-2. As with the previous motion, the Court looks first to the claims at issue, 

which sound strictly in breach of contract arising out of TPX’s failure to pay the balance of the 

amount set forth in the purchase order. See Dkt. 1. Arbor Networks is not a defendant in this 

action, and there are no causes of action alleging malfeasance on the part of Arbor Networks -

with or without the involvement of TPX. 

Radware points to one allegation in the background section of the complaint, made “on 

information and belief” which provides, in relevant part: 

Arbor Networks has assisted Defendant TPx in its breach of the Master Purchase 

Agreement by inducing Defendant TPx to breach the Master Purchase Agreement

and procuring such breach for its own benefit. Plaintiff expects comprehensive 

discovery to provide further information with regards to the extent of Arbor 

Networks’ involvement in the matter. 

Dkt. 1 ¶ 24 (emphasis added). However, Radware’s reliance on “comprehensive discovery” 

arising out of the claims it actually asserted in this case is misplaced. In further support of its 

motion, Radware identifies four “unusual and inexplicable occurrences and events.” 

1. In the “Pre-Sale Period” before TPX issued the purchase order to Radware, the Senior 

Product Manager for TPX expressed favoritism for Arbor Networks over the Radware 

product; 

2. Radware’s belief that Arbor Networks cast aspersions on Radware and its product to 

discourage TPX from switching from Arbor Networks to Radware; 

3. TPX’s retention of the Arbor Networks product on the TPX network after the installation 

of the Radware solution as a second line of defense; and finally 

4. TPX’s insistence on an installment plan consisting of quarterly payment over a period of 

four years. 

Dkt. 71 at 2. 

Case 5:19-cv-03835-LHK Document 72 Filed 03/24/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Even assuming each of the foregoing to be true, the Court is not persuaded that these 

occurrences bolster Radware’s allegation that Arbor Networks induced TPX to breach the 

contract. TPX suggests, and the Court agrees, that none of the actions above appear to be anything 

other than a party competing not to lose an existing customer and a prudent buyer moving 

cautiously from one provider to another. And as noted above, Arbor Networks is not a defendant 

in this action and there are no claims arising out of Arbor Network’s conduct. If the documents 

requested could be identified and were produced, which claim or defense would they support? 

The answer, as above, is none. 

Accordingly, RFPs 1, 2, 4, 17, 18, 23, 26, and 27 are overbroad and not in proportion to 

the needs of the case. Radware’s motion to compel is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2020

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-03835-LHK Document 72 Filed 03/24/20 Page 4 of 4