Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01662/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01662-9/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

ILLUMINA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATERA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-01662-SI 

ORDER RE SEVENTH AND EIGHTH 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTERS

Re: Dkt. No. 177

Having reviewed the parties’ discovery dispute letters, the Court hereby orders the 

following:

1. Illumina’s 30(b)(6) Deponent and Privileged Document: The Court orders 

Illumina to produce the entire document that refreshed its 30(b)(6) deponent’s recollection because

the witness was provided the document during deposition preparation and he directly drew upon it 

during his testimony. See Dkt. No. 177-3 at 3

1

. Illumina produced a redacted version of the 

document, revealing only portions regarding patent invalidity. This was improper and failed to 

comply with the Court’s previous order. Dkt. No. 173. 

Illumina relies on two cases in support of its position that it need only produce certain parts 

of the document in question. Those cases both involve deponents reviewing files while testifying. 

In Valvoline Instant Oil Change Franchising v. RFG Oil, Inc., a witness brought a timeline into a 

1 Natera argues that “Illumina has never suggested that he reviewed anything less than the entire 

document.” Dkt. No. 177-3 at 3. 

Case 3:18-cv-01662-SI Document 179 Filed 03/02/20 Page 1 of 3
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

deposition, which he used to refresh his memory on two occasions. Valvoline Instant Oil Change 

Franchising v. RFG Oil, Inc., No. 12cv2079-GPC(KSC), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199539, at *13 

(S.D. Cal. May 16, 2014). The court only required disclosure of those sections read during the

deposition. Id. at *19. Here, Illumina’s witness did not read portions of a document during his 

deposition but reviewed the entire document beforehand. 

Similarly, in S & A Painting Co. v. O.W.B. Corp., the court limited production to sections of 

notes read during a deposition. S & A Painting Co. v. O.W.B. Corp., 103 F.R.D. 407, 408 (W.D. Pa. 

1984). That is not the case here. Because “broad disclosure has been ordered when deponents 

review entire files prior to testifying,” Illumina must produce the entire email its deponent reviewed 

before his deposition. Id. at 409.

Illumina also argues the court in Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions Liab. Co. applied a 

“middle-ground approach” to compel production of documents relied on by a 30(b)(6) witness. 

Adidas Am., Inc. v. TRB Acquisitions Liab. Co., 324 F.R.D. 389, 399 (D. Or. 2017). The “middleground approach” involved application of the Sporck factors subject to rebuttable presumptions 

when certain elements were met. Id. Because this Court has already reached the conclusion that 

the Sporck factors support disclosure of the entire document, Illumina must produce the document 

without its redactions. 

2. Illumina’s Request to File Discovery Dispute Letters Under Seal:

On February 19, 2020, plaintiff filed an administrative motion to file under seal the 

Discovery Letter Regarding the Redacted Schwillinski document. Dkt. No. 177. In the 

administrative motion to seal, plaintiff moves to seal portions of the discovery letter because it 

“cites, quotes, and discusses material and testimony designated ‘Outside Attorney’s Eyes Only 

Information.’” Id. at 2. However, a party’s designation of material as “confidential” is not enough 

to establish a basis for sealing. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5 (Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) provides 

that “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 

sealable.”). Nothing in the joint discovery letter strikes the Court as particularly sensitive or 

Case 3:18-cv-01662-SI Document 179 Filed 03/02/20 Page 2 of 3
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

otherwise in need of protection from public viewing. The portions of Mr. Schwillinski’s deposition 

quoted from do not discuss sensitive material – rather the testimony generally discusses Illumina’s 

position that it does not infringe the ‘592 patent, which is hardly a secret. Dkt. No. 177-3 at 3-4. 

Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion to seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2020

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01662-SI Document 179 Filed 03/02/20 Page 3 of 3