Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00108/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00108-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: QUALCOMM LITIGATION Case No.: 17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY REGARDING 

QUALCOMM’S RESPONSES TO 

APPLE’S SECOND SET OF 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

[ECF NO. 404]

This Joint Motion was filed on April 4, 2018. The dispute involves 

Qualcomm’s responses to 60 requests for production (“RFPs”). Apple does not 

challenge any specific response; it challenges all of them for not meeting the 

requirements of Rule 34, Fed. R. Civ. P. Qualcomm asserts that taken in 

context, considering that these RFPs are duplicative of earlier RFPs and 

considering the lengthy correspondence between the parties regarding 

Qualcomm’s search methodology, its responses are sufficient. 

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain 

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 411 Filed 04/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

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

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). “Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in 

evidence to be discoverable.” Id. District courts have broad discretion to

limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more 

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of 

Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response 

must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as 

requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.” Rule

34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce responsive 

information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must be 

completed no later than the time specified in the request or another 

reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state 

whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that 

objection. Rule 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the 

part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. 

DISCUSSION

In this dispute, Apple is not challenging any particular production or 

withholding by Qualcomm. Apple’s complaint is that the responses to these 

60 RFPs are deficient as a matter of law under Rule 34, Fed. R. Civ. P. Apple 

asserts that it cannot tell what is being produced or withheld in response to 

these RFPs. Qualcomm responds that, in context, its responses are sufficient. 

Qualcomm has supplied to the Court, in a sealed filing, its correspondence 

with Apple regarding its approach to managing the hundreds of RFPs served, 

this far, in this case. The Court has reviewed the RFPs at issue, the 

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 411 Filed 04/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

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

responses, the arguments of the parties and the materials filed under seal. 

Apple is correct that if viewed in vacuum, these responses are deficient. 

But, this is not a vacuum. The Court has held a hearing and a status 

conference regarding discovery in this matter and has ruled on several 

discovery disputes. The Court is familiar with the context behind this 

dispute. 

Taken in context, the Court finds Qualcomm’s responses sufficient 

under Rule 34. Apple’s main thrust is that it cannot determine whether 

documents are being withheld. Qualcomm asserts that Apple has been 

provided a detailed explanation of Qualcomm’s search parameters which, by 

exclusion, describe what it is not searching for. Documents outside of the 

search parameters are not being produced and need not be further described. 

See Rowan v. Sunflower Elec. Power Corp., No. 15-cv-9227-JWL-TJJ, 2016 

WL 3743102 *5 (D. Kan. July 13, 2016). Qualcomm has stated that its 

production regarding these and the related RFPs will be completed by May 

11, 2018. Apple has not challenged that assertion. 

CONCLUSION

Apple’s motion to compel, as presented in this Joint Motion, is 

DENIED. 

Dated: April 10, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 411 Filed 04/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3