Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05808/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05808-19/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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FINJAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PROOFPOINT, INC. and ARMORIZE 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT NO. 3

Re: Dkt. No. 185

At issue in Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 3: (1) whether defendants should 

be compelled to produce Wayne Huang for a second day of deposition; (2) whether defendants 

should be compelled to produce witness(es) to testify about Topics 8 and 11-13 in plaintiff’s third 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice; and (3) whether defendants should be compelled to

serve supplemental responses to plaintiff’s Interrogatories 14-15. The matter is deemed suitable 

for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the parties’ 

respective arguments, this court denies plaintiff’s request for further discovery.

A. Huang’s Deposition

This court is told that Huang is a co-founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief 

Technology Officer of defendant Armorize Technologies, as well as defendant Proofpoint, Inc.’s

Vice President of Engineering. Defendants designated him to testify as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) 

witness about a number of technical topics noticed by plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (Finjan).

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 201 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 7
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

Defendants say that Huang is a busy high-level executive based in Taiwan. For that 

reason, they told Finjan that he would be produced for only a single day of deposition, not to 

exceed seven hours. Finjan, however, reserved the right to depose him for more than one day, 

given his role in defendants’ business and the fact that he would be deposed both as an individual 

and as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) witness.

Huang was deposed here on August 11, 2015. Defendants say that the examination 

exceeded seven hours, but do not say precisely how long Huang was deposed.1

Finjan now argues that Huang must be produced for a second deposition. The reason: 

According to plaintiff, on August 5, 2015 (about a week before Huang’s deposition), defendants 

produced 120,000 pages of documents, including detailed technical documents and Huang’s 

emails. Plaintiff says that, even after Huang was deposed, defendants continued to produce other 

documents through mid-September,2and that defendants’ August-September 2015 production 

totaled about 700,000 pages of documents. Technical documents, says Finjan, should have been 

produced in January of this year (pursuant to this court’s order re DDJR No. 1). With respect to 

the Huang emails, plaintiff said that its ESI (electronically stored information) requests were 

narrowly tailored and complied with the court’s ESI Order (Dkt.94). Finjan further claims that it 

requested the Huang emails in April 2015; that all ESI search terms were finalized in May 2015;

and that there is no reason why defendants could not have produced the emails much sooner than 

they did. Plaintiff asserts that defendants did not even begin processing emails for production 

until June 2015 and that they initially searched the wrong databases.

According to defendants’ version of events: They made the source code for the accused 

products available for inspection over a year ago, but Finjan inspected it only a few times prior to 

August 2015. Additionally, defendants claim that they also timely produced key internal technical 

documents, including engineering wikis for accused products. Then, in January 2015, defendants 

 

1

This court assumes that if the examination went significantly over the seven-hour limit, 

defendants would have said so. (They have not.)

2

The parties jointly requested, and obtained, an extension of the September 2 cutoff date to 

complete certain discovery.

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 201 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 7
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

say that after a reasonable search, they produced several thousand pages of additional engineering 

wiki pages and documents relating to their products and technology.

As for the Huang emails, defendants contend that plaintiff’s ESI requests were overbroad 

and included terms like “HackAlert,” “Scan*,” “Analyz*,” and “Core*” that yielded over 60,000 

hits. Finjan then reportedly responded by modifying its proposed search terms. Defendants say 

that they continued to object that the terms were still too broad; nevertheless, on May 12, 2015 

Finjan asked defendants to search for emails using those terms. And, although they reserved the 

right to seek costs pursuant to the ESI order, defendants acquiesced. Defendants say that email 

production began on June 26, 2015 and included over 110,000 documents and 925,000 pages of 

custodial emails comprising full families of any email or attachment containing Finjan’s search 

terms. They deny Finjan’s assertion that they searched the wrong databases; rather, defendants 

claim that they first ran the search terms using the native Gmail search tool, and then found more 

responsive emails by using a document collection platform. Additionally, defendants claim that 

Finjan continued to narrow its ESI search terms for Huang as late as July 16.

Unless otherwise ordered by the court or stipulated by the parties, a deposition is 

presumptively limited to one day of seven hours. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). Huang is entitled to 

the presumptive seven-hour limit, even though he testified both individually and as a Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 30(b)(6) witness; and, Finjan does not have “carte blanche to depose an individual for seven 

hours as an individual and seven hours as a 30(b)(6) witness.” Miller v. Waseca Med. Ctr., 205 

F.R.D. 537, 540 (D. Minn. 2002). Determining whether a further examination of Huang is 

warranted requires a specific factual inquiry. Id. “The court must allow additional time consistent 

with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another 

person, or any other circumstances impedes or delays the examination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1).

Arguing that it did not have time to sufficiently review the 120,000 pages of documents 

produced the week before Huang’s deposition, and noting that defendants continued to produce 

documents even after Huang was deposed, Finjan says Huang must now be produced for a second 

day of deposition. Finjan also points out that defendants’ August-September 2015 production 

includes detailed documents about certain source code components. However, Finjan has not 

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 201 Filed 10/26/15 Page 3 of 7
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

identified any documents without which it was prejudiced in preparing for or taking Huang’s 

deposition. Moreover, the record indicates that Finjan had access to defendants’ source code for 

over a year, as well as technical documents and a large portion of Huang’s emails to prepare for 

his deposition. There is no suggestion that Huang was unprepared to testify. And, plaintiff has 

not identified any matters about which it was unable to examine Huang due to the timing of 

defendants’ production. Finjan has not made a sufficient showing justifying another examination 

of Huang. Its request for an order compelling defendants to produce him for a second deposition 

is denied.

B. Plaintiff’s Third Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice

Finjan requests an order compelling defendants to produce witness(es) to testify about 

Topics 8 and 11-13 in plaintiff’s third Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) notice. Topic 8 seeks testimony re 

“[i]dentification of the technologies in each of the accused instrumentalities from the date of first 

sale.” Topics 11-13 seek testimony about the “conception, design, operation, and development” of 

certain source code components, and defendants say that those topics pertain to Proofpoint’s 

Targeted Attack Protection product that Huang developed with other Armorize engineers. (DDJR 

3, Ex. 3).

Plaintiff’s third Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice was served on August 18, 2015. 

Finjan says that Topics 8 and 11-13 were not “specified” in its earlier deposition notices because 

defendants did not timely provide discovery that would have allowed Finjan to identify these 

topics sooner. Reiterating that defendants produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents 

in the last month and a half of discovery, plaintiff says that defendants have no basis to complain 

about the timing of the third Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice and should be ordered to 

produce witness(es) to testify about these matters.

Defendants argue that Topics 8 and 11-13 of plaintiff’s third deposition notice are

duplicative of Topic 6 of plaintiff’s second Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) notice, for which Huang was 

designated to testify. Indeed, Topic 6 of plaintiff’s second notice sought testimony about the 

“conception, design, structure, research, development, operation, features, testing and functionality 

of” Targeted Attack Protection, as well as “identification of the components or modules of source 

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 201 Filed 10/26/15 Page 4 of 7
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

code responsible for the use of” that product. (DDJR 3, Ex. 2). Plaintiff’s request for an order 

requiring defendants to produce witness(es) to testify about Topics 8 and 11-13 of plaintiff’s third 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice is denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

C. Interrogatories 14 and 15

Interrogatory 14 asks defendants to “[i]dentify the first date” that certain technologies 

listed in the interrogatory “were used, included or implemented with each of the Accused 

Instrumentalities.” (DDJR 3, Ex. 4). For each of the “Accused Instrumentalities” and 

technologies defendants identify in response to that interrogatory, Interrogatory 15 asks defendants 

to “identify the first date the Accused Instrumentality was sold or offered for sale with each 

technology.” (Id.).

At issue are defendants’ second supplemental responses served on September 17, 2015. 

Finjan contends that those responses are deficient for several reasons. First, Finjan says that 

defendants only selectively address “certain versions” of products. They apparently are referring 

to defendants’ response stating that the listed technologies were incorporated into “certain 

versions” of the Targeted Attack Protection product. (DDJR 3, Ex. 4 at 7). Defendants say that 

by referring to “certain versions,” they simply meant to note at which point the product first 

included the identified components. Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling a further 

supplemental response is denied.

Next, Finjan argues that defendants do not address the Enterprise Protection and Essentials 

accused products. However, defendants’ responses did address both of those products. (DDJR 3, 

Ex. 4 at 4-5 and 13). Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling a further supplemental response is 

denied.

Finally, Finjan complains that defendants’ responses do not say when the accused products 

first “used” certain technologies. As drafted, Interrogatory 14 asks defendants to identify the first 

date that certain technologies were “used, included or implemented with” the accused products. 

Defendants objected to the undefined terms “used,” “included” and “implemented” as vague and 

ambiguous. Nonetheless, defendants answered the interrogatory based on what they say is their 

understanding of what was being asked, and identified the dates that certain technologies were 

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 201 Filed 10/26/15 Page 5 of 7
6

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

first “implemented” or “incorporated” in various products. Plaintiff has not defined “used” or 

clearly articulated how “used” is substantially different than “implemented” and “incorporated” in 

defendants’ responses. Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling a further supplemental response 

is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 201 Filed 10/26/15 Page 6 of 7
7

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

3:13-cv-05808-HSG Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Benu C. Wells bwells@kramerlevin.com

Cristina Lynn Martinez cmartinez@kramerlevin.com

David Morad Elihu davidelihu@quinnemanuel.com, marthaherrera@quinnemanuel.com

Grant Nicholas Margeson grantmargeson@quinnemanuel.com

Hannah Yunkyung Lee hlee@kramerlevin.com, svdocketing@kramerlevin.com

Iman Lordgooei imanlordgooei@quinnemanuel.com, kathleencorey@quinnemanuel.com, 

lorenaalfaro@quinnemanuel.com

James R. Hannah jhannah@kramerlevin.com, svdocketing@kramerlevin.com

Jennifer A. Kash jenniferkash@quinnemanuel.com, terririvers@quinnemanuel.com

Lisa Kobialka lkobialka@kramerlevin.com, svdocketing@kramerlevin.com

Paul J. Andre pandre@kramerlevin.com, svdocketing@kramerlevin.com

Sam Stephen Stake samstake@quinnemanuel.com, christinamunoz@quinnemanuel.com, 

laurenhillemann@quinnemanuel.com

Sean Sang-Chul Pak seanpak@quinnemanuel.com, susanneglobig@quinnemanuel.com

Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 201 Filed 10/26/15 Page 7 of 7