Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05511/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05511-7/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

EON CORP IP HOLDINGS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-05511-WHO 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 206, 207, 213

BACKGROUND

EON moves for an award of sanctions against Apple for Apple’s alleged failure to comply 

with a discovery order. In my June 14, 2016 Order resolving the parties’ dispute over what, if 

any, information from prior cases Apple was required to produce to EON in this case, I required 

the following:

1. Apple shall produce from the VirnetX, Unwired Planet, and SimpleAir cases the 

relevant portions of documents discussing APNs, iMessage, and FaceTime contained in: (i) 

expert reports; (ii) deposition transcripts; (iii) trial transcripts; and (iv) trial exhibits.

2. Apple shall not produce information regarding other parties’ products or technology that 

is protected by the protective orders or sealing orders in those cases.

If, after reviewing the production required by this Order, EON has a good faith basis for 

seeking additional categories of information (e.g., pleadings or discovery responses), it 

may do so, but only if supported by specific citations to materials already produced to 

demonstrate relevance.

June 14, 2016 Order [Dkt. No. 184] at 2-3. EON moves for sanctions arguing that: 

(i) Apple impermissibly redacted large swaths of information from the documents it 

produced based on its own view that the redacted information was not “relevant”; 

(ii) Apple has failed to produce third-party documents that are relevant, namely the 

plaintiffs’ expert reports; and 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 216 Filed 10/28/16 Page 1 of 6
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

(iii) Apple took too long (two months) to produce the documents.

As a cure for Apple’s conduct, EON wants me to order Apple to produce the information 

redacted for “relevance,” order Apple to produce additional documents, and pay plaintiff’s 

counsel’s fees incurred in bringing this motion. 

Apple opposes, arguing that in light of the express language of my Order, it was entitled to 

redact from the documents information that did not discuss APNs, iMessage, or FaceTime, that it

diligently moved to produce the information covered by my Order (which required 

communications and discussions with Apple’s outside counsel in the other litigations), and it

complied with my Order by refusing to produce materials designated confidential by the plaintiffs’ 

in the prior cases.

DISCUSSION

I. DELAY

EON complains that Apple excessively delayed production of the responsive documents 

for two months under the guise of having to review for third-party confidential materials when in 

reality Apple was taking the time to impermissibly redact large portions of the documents as 

irrelevant. This complaint is not well-taken. Apple had to coordinate for the production with at 

least three other law firms that acted as outside counsel for it in the other cases. Declaration of 

Ezekiel Rauscher [Dkt. No. 212-1] ¶¶ 3,4, 8,12, 13; see also Dkt. Nos.212-2, 212-3, 212-4. The 

responsive documents from the prior litigations were received by Apple’s current counsel between 

June 29 and July 20, 2016. Id. ¶ 8. Apple’s current counsel (and their vendor) then reviewed the 

documents to redact any confidential information regarding third-parties’ products or technology 

and, I assume, also spent significant time redacting “irrelevant” information (e.g., information not 

relevant to APNs, iMessage, or Facetime). Id. ¶¶ 9, 13. 

Considering that Apple’s current counsel had to contact and negotiate with three law firms 

who represented Apple in the prior cases and then review the documents produced by those firms, 

and in light of the number of documents actually produced (over 600 documents, in excess of 

20,000 pages), taking two months to produce the responsive materials was not unreasonable and 

does not provide a basis for sanctioning Apple.

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 216 Filed 10/28/16 Page 2 of 6
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

II. REDACTIONS FOR RELEVANCE

Apple does not dispute that it redacted large amounts of “irrelevant” information from the 

produced documents because those portions did not discuss APNs, iMessage, or FaceTime and my 

prior Order only required Apple to product the “relevant portions of documents discussing APNs, 

iMessage, and FaceTime.” (emphasis added). Apple, therefore, narrowly reads the language of 

my prior Order to allow redactions on pages of documents that are otherwise responsive, while 

EON offers a broader reading that would require Apple to produce unredacted pages of documents 

where there is any discussion of APNs, iMessage, or FaceTime. 

EON does not argue – except with respect to one document – that Apple’s redactions 

prevent it from understanding the context of the material Apple has produced. That one document 

is the expert report of M. Ray Perryman. EON contends that the extensive redactions – including 

the table of contents – from the Perryman report show that Apple redacted relevant information 

regarding the accused products in this case. Apple admits to having over-redacted and submits in 

support of its opposition a revised version of the Perryman report that more narrowly redacts only 

the names of licensees from the table of contents (as opposed to the majority of the table of 

contents) and provides two new un-redacted paragraphs (¶ 20 and ¶ 76) that discuss APNs in 

passing.1 EON does not specifically identify particular portions of other documents or specific 

redactions that it claims are over-broad, either because EON cannot discern the context of the 

discussion in which they are located or because it appears that the redacted text discusses APNs, 

iMessage, or Facetime.

I cannot say that Apple has violated my Order in a way that merits sanctions. If I were 

Apple, I might not have wasted time redacting information based solely on relevance. Then again, 

if I were EON, I would not have wasted time raising this dispute in a fully briefed and heavily 

papered motion for sanctions. Instead, it should have invoked the much more efficient joint 

 

1 As to the redactions made in otherwise publicly available documents, Apple asserts that the 

redactions from the iPhone user guide did not concern iMessage (but instead a different “Messages 

application,” an explanation that EON does not contest in reply) and the redacted discussions of 

“push” delivery for email, calendar and contacts do not implicate the APNs, iMessage or Facetime 

products accused here. Oppo. at 3-4. EON criticizes these redactions from public documents in 

its reply, but does not explain how the information redacted is necessarily relevant to the accused 

products in this case such that is should have been produced under my prior Order. 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 216 Filed 10/28/16 Page 3 of 6
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

discovery letter dispute process. 

If there are discrete portions of documents where the redactions prevent EON from 

understanding the context of the discussion of APNs, iMessage, or Facetime, or if there are other

specific instances where EON believes Apple over-redacted relevant information, EON should 

invoke a meet and confer process as to those documents. If the parties cannot resolve specific 

redaction disputes, they may submit them to me for determination under the joint discovery letter 

dispute process. 

III. FAILURE TO PRODUCE EXPERT REPORTS

Finally, EON complains that Apple has not produced any expert reports from the plaintiffs 

in the other cases. Apple responds that because its current counsel was informed by former

counsel for Apple that plaintiffs’ expert reports were designated as confidential by those plaintiffs, 

Apple was not required to produce them in response to my Order. Apple, instead, produced “all 

responsive expert reports that were not designated confidential by another party.” Oppo. 6; 

Rauscher Decl. ¶¶4-7; Declaration of Lisa A. Tarpley [Dkt. No. 212-2] ¶ 6 (counsel for Apple in 

SimpleAir, Inc. v. AWS Convergence Tech., et al., did not collect SimpleAir’s infringement, 

damages, or validity expert reports because those were designated as confidential by SimpleAir 

and discussed other parties’ technology and/or products); Declaration of Christina Kogan [Dkt. 

No. 212-3] ¶ 5 (counsel for Apple in Unwired Planet LLC v. Apple, Inc., did not produce expert 

reports designated as confidential by Unwired and included discussions of Unwired’s patents and 

related technology, licenses, and other financial information), ¶ 6 (did not produce other reports 

and discovery responses which did not discuss APNs, iMessage, or Facetime); Declaration of 

Leslie M. Schmidt [Dkt. No. 212-4] ¶ 5 (counsel for Apple in VirnetX, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. was not 

asked to produce and did not produce documents designated as confidential by another party in 

that case, including VirnetX’s expert reports, which include references to VirnetX’s patents or the 

development of technology claimed in the patents).

EON points out in reply that my Order allowed Apple to withhold “information regarding 

other parties’ products or technology that is protected by the protective orders or sealing orders in 

those cases.” (emphasis added). As such, EON argues that Apple was required to secure and 

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 216 Filed 10/28/16 Page 4 of 6
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

produce the portions of the plaintiffs’ expert reports that discussed Apple and Apple’s technology 

(even if those sections of the reports were designated confidential by those plaintiffs). EON’s 

interpretation shows that my prior Order was not as precise as it could have been. 

In issuing my Order on the parties’ discovery dispute, I was attempting to address Apple’s 

concern that it would be unduly burdensome (in light of the weak to non-existent showing of 

“nexus” made by EON) for Apple to have to negotiate and secure for production information 

marked as confidential by parties other than Apple in those other cases. Notice would need to be 

provided under the protective orders at issue and negotiations conducted with not only the outside 

counsel for Apple but also the plaintiffs who had designated materials as confidential. I did not 

intend to put Apple (or those third parties) through that effort, but instead intended to require 

Apple to produce all information that was, essentially, within its own or its counsels’ control.

Apple’s interpretation accurately captured the intent of my Order. 

Just as discovery disputes are more expeditiously resolved through the joint discovery 

letter process, so too ambiguities in orders are more expeditiously resolved by a motion for 

clarification as opposed to a full-blown sanctions motion.

As noted above with respect to redactions, if based on its review of the materials produced 

by Apple, EON finds a need for additional production – for documents referenced in the expert 

reports or for exhibits discussed in the depositions – EON should follow up with Apple. If the 

parties cannot agree that specifically identified documents should be produced, that matter can be 

brought to my attention through a joint discovery dispute letter wherein EON explains with 

precision how the documents it seeks share a technological nexus with or are otherwise relevant to 

the APNs, iMessage, or Facetime products at issue in this case.

IV. MOTIONS TO SEAL

Both EON and Apple submit administrative motions to seal information submitted in 

support of or in opposition to the motion for sanctions. Dkt. Nos. 207, 213. EON seeks to seal 

exhibits F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, Q and R to the Declaration of Joshua Jones in Support of EON’s 

motion for sanctions. Dkt. No. 206. Exhibits F, G, H, J, K, L and R are deposition transcripts 

from the prior cases that according to a declaration from Apple’s counsel in support of sealing

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 216 Filed 10/28/16 Page 5 of 6
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

contain confidential and proprietary information regarding Apple’s technology, marketing, and 

finances. Dkt. No. 211,¶¶ 6-11, 14. Exhibit M is a copy of the Perryman report from the 

SimpleAir case, and according to Apple’s declarant contains confidential financial and cost 

information relating to Apple’s Push Notification Service. Id. ¶ 12. Exhibit Q is a copy of an 

internal Apple marketing presentation containing confidential and proprietary information 

regarding marketing for Facetime. Id. ¶ 13. Based on the declaration submitted in support of 

sealing, I find good cause supports sealing of these exhibits and EON’s administrative motion to 

seal [Dkt. No. 207] is GRANTED.

Apple moves to seal Exhibit 10 to the Declaration of Ezekiel Rauscher, which is a copy of 

excerpts of the Perryman expert report discussed above. As above, good cause has been shown to 

seal this exhibit. Apple’s administrative motion to seal [Dkt. No. 213] is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, EON’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05511-WHO Document 216 Filed 10/28/16 Page 6 of 6