Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05243/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05243-6/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABSTRAX, INC.,

Plaintiff, No. C 09-5243 PJH

v. ORDER RE DISCOVERY MOTIONS

SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff Abstrax, Inc.’s motion to compel discovery, and defendant

Sun Microsystems, Inc.’s motion for a protective order. Having read the parties’ papers

and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause

appearing, the court hereby GRANTS Abstrax’s motion and DENIES Sun’s motion, as

follows.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide a liberal framework for obtaining

discovery. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 505 (1947). A party may obtain discovery of

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claims or defenses, or “for good

cause,” discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevancy in the discovery context has been construed broadly to

encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that

bear on, any issue that is in the case. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S.

340, 352 (1978). District courts have broad discretion in resolving whether the information

sought is relevant for discovery purposes. Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406

F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Relevant non-privileged discovery may be limited if the discovery sought is

Case 4:09-cv-05243-PJH Document 207 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Thus, it does not appear that the parties contributed to the delay in adjudicating this

dispute.

2

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is

more convenient; or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties'

resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the

proposed discovery in resolving the issues. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).

Here, Abstrax seeks discovery into Sun’s CDT software tool. The court finds that

Abstrax has made a sufficient showing that the information sought is relevant. Moreover,

the discovery requests were propounded in September 2008, while the case was still

pending in the Eastern District of Texas, and before the discovery cut-off date had passed;

and when Sun declined to provide the requested discovery and moved for a protective

order, Abstrax promptly moved to compel.1

Nevertheless, the court does share Sun’s concerns regarding the breadth and scope

of the discovery requests. Thus, while the court denies Sun’s motion for a protective order

to preclude discovery into the CDT software tool, that denial is without prejudice to Sun’s

filing of another motion for protective order to limit the scope of the CDT discovery. Any

such motion will be referred to a magistrate judge for resolution.

After all disputes regarding the CDT discovery have been settled, the parties shall

contact the court to request that a further case management conference be scheduled to

set a new briefing and hearing schedule for the dispositive motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-05243-PJH Document 207 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 2