Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04790/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04790-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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

FINJAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BITDEFENDER INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-04790-HSG (TSH)

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 156

The parties filed a joint discovery letter brief at ECF No. 156. It raised two issues: 

Finjan’s request for supplemental financial information for the accused products, and 

Bitdefender’s request to strike Finjan’s supplemental response to Bitdefender’s interrogatory No. 

5. The Court held a telephonic hearing today, and now issues the following order.

A. Financial Information

Finjan’s interrogatory No. 4 asked Bitdefender to:

Describe in detail the revenue, sales, billings, pricing, costs, gross 

profits, net profits, and market share of each of the Accused 

Instrumentalities from the year 2012 to the present generated (a) in 

the United States and separately, (b) worldwide, including but not 

limited to identifying on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis the 

gross and net revenues and gross and net profits generated by each of 

the Accused Instrumentalities, as well as the costs and expenses 

incurred by You in generating such revenue and profits.

Bitdefender originally responded to this interrogatory on March 5, 2018, stating that 

“Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Bitdefender will identify documents from which information 

sought in this interrogatory can be obtained by Finjan when they are produced pursuant to the 

Local Patent Rules.” Bitdefender served a supplemental response on April 25, 2019, identifying 

by Bates number documents that contained the requested information “for the period between 

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 157 Filed 08/06/19 Page 1 of 5
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

February 2015 and February 2018.” Bitdefender also stated that it “will identify additional 

documents from which information sought in this interrogatory can be obtained by Finjan –

particularly for periods after those covered by already-produced documents – when Bitdefender 

produces them.”

Bitdefender again supplemented its response to this interrogatory on July 12, 2019, the last 

day of fact discovery. This response cited documents that provided profit-and-loss statements and 

product-by-product billings through March 2019, that is, the first quarter of this year.

Finjan now seeks an order compelling Bitdefender to supplement its response to 

interrogatory No. 4 with financial information through Q2 of this year. (Finjan also seeks a 

similar order with respect to Requests for Production (“RFPs”) Nos. 26-28, 53, and 60-62. 

However, the Court does not have the text of the RFPs in front of it and is therefore unable to 

ascertain what they asked for.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) states that “[a] party . . . who has responded to an 

interrogatory . . . . must supplement . . . its . . . response . . . in a timely manner if the party learns 

that in some material respect the . . . response is incomplete . . . and if the additional . . . 

information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process 

or in writing . . .” The Advisory Committee Notes to the 1993 Amendments suggest that the 

obligation to supplement under Rule 26(e) does not end with the fact discovery cutoff:

Supplementations need not be made as each new item of information 

is learned but should be made at appropriate intervals during the 

discovery period, and with special promptness as the trial date 

approaches. It may be useful for the scheduling order to specify the 

time or times when supplementations should be made. (emphasis 

added)

Case law confirms that the fact discovery cutoff does not terminate the obligation to 

supplement. See Woods v. Google, Inc., 2014 WL 1321007, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2014) 

(“The Court can definitively state that the Rule 26(e) duty to supplement or correct incomplete or 

incorrect responses does, in fact, extend beyond the discovery cutoff date.”); Hernandez v. 

Polanco Enters., Inc., 19 F. Supp. 3d 918, 933 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(e) places litigants under an affirmative duty to supplement non-deposition discovery responses, 

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 157 Filed 08/06/19 Page 2 of 5
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

even after the discovery cut-off date.”).

Bitdefender does not dispute that the obligation to supplement exists after the fact 

discovery cutoff. Rather, with respect to interrogatory No. 4, Bitdefender argues that its Q2 2019 

financial information simply isn’t responsive. After all, Finjan served this interrogatory in 

February 2018, and it asked for certain financial information “from the year 2012 to the present.” 

Had Bitdefender stood its ground during discovery, it would have had a good argument that this 

was a request for information just through February 2018. See Hnot v. Willis Grp. Holdings Ltd., 

2006 WL 2381869, at *2 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2006) (“Contrary to what plaintiffs seem to 

assume, a statement referring to ‘the present’ generally does not refer to any moment in time 

beyond when the statement was made. . . . The same logic applies to discovery requests; thus, a 

discovery request dated January 16, 2002, for documents extending ‘to the present’ only requires 

production of documents in existence on or before January 16, 2002.”); In re High Fructose Corn 

Syrup Antitrust Litig., 2000 WL 33180835, at *3 (C.D. Ill. July 19, 2000) (“[T]he July 15, 1997, 

discovery request was for information ‘to present,’ i.e., through July 15, 1997 . . . .”). Of course, 

had Bitdefender taken that line, Finjan would likely have amended its interrogatory or served 

another discovery request that more clearly sought financial information for the future.

But Bitdefender didn’t do that. Its April 25, 2019 supplemental response contained 

citations to documents with financial information through February 2018, but then stated that it 

“will identify additional documents from which information sought in this interrogatory can be 

obtained by Finjan – particularly for periods after those covered by already-produced documents –

when Bitdefender produces them.” (emphasis added). Consistent with its April 25 response, 

Bitdefender’s second supplemental response on July 12 contained citations to documents with 

financial information through March 2019. 

Bitdefender’s April 25 and July 12 responses are a waiver of the argument that Bitdefender 

need not produce information in response to interrogatory No. 4 for periods of time after February 

2018. For Bitdefender to claw back that waiver now (after fact discovery has closed) would be 

prejudicial to Finjan because it is now too late for Finjan to propound other discovery requests 

aimed at financial information from after February 2018. Accordingly, the Court will hold 

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 157 Filed 08/06/19 Page 3 of 5
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

Bitdefender to this waiver. Further, Bitdefender makes no argument about burden concerning the 

supplementation of its response to interrogatory No. 4, so there is no prejudice to Bitdefender in 

holding it to this waiver.

Finjan requests that Bitdefender be ordered to supplement its response to interrogatory No. 

4 with Q2 information no later than August 12, 2019, so that Finjan’s experts may include this 

information in their opening expert reports that are due on August 22, 2019. The Court discussed 

this request with the parties during the telephonic hearing, and Bitdefender stated that it could 

comply with this deadline. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Bitdefender to update its response 

to interrogatory No. 4 with 2019 Q2 information by August 12, 2019.

B. New Source Code Pincites

Bitdefender moves to strike new pinpoint citations to source code that Finjan added to its 

response to Bitdefender’s interrogatory No. 5 on August 1, 2019. The parties trade accusations 

about whether Finjan’s addition was proper or whether it was untimely. However, the Court 

declines to resolve that question because, as with Bitdefender’s previous request to have the 

undersigned strike information from a Finjan interrogatory response, “the real question is whether 

Bitdefender is asking for the right remedy.” ECF No. 121. 

Bitdefender is of course right that “parties may not use their obligation to supplement as an 

excuse to violate the clear terms of a Scheduling Order, unilaterally buying themselves additional 

time to make disclosures, thereby unduly prejudicing other parties and potentially delaying the 

progress of a case.” Abbott Labs. v. Lupin Ltd., 2011 WL 1897322, at *3 (D. Del. May 19, 2011). 

But whether Finjan has done that is not really a discovery dispute or an issue concerning the 

adequacy of a discovery response. See ECF No. 42 (referring “discovery disputes and issues” to a 

Magistrate Judge); see also ECF No. 121 (“The Court reviews interrogatory responses to see if 

they answer the question, not to determine if the answer is legally viable. That’s what a summary 

judgment motion is for.”). Whether Finjan has prejudicially delayed adding these pinpoint 

citations to its interrogatory response is relevant to a motion to exclude evidence under Rule 37 

(the issue the Court considered in Abbott), which could affect what evidence an expert is entitled 

to rely on or that is admissible on summary judgment or at trial – questions for the District Judge 

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 157 Filed 08/06/19 Page 4 of 5
5

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

that have not been referred to the undersigned. But it’s not relevant to whether Finjan has 

answered the interrogatory, since the newly added information is plainly responsive. Accordingly, 

the Court DENIES Bitdefender’s motion to strike.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 157 Filed 08/06/19 Page 5 of 5