Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01392/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01392-20/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

05cv1392-B (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

BROADCOM CORPORATION,

Defendant. 

BROADCOM CORPORATION,

Counterclaimant,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Counterdefendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05cv1392-B (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART BROADCOM’S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS REGARDING

QUALCOMM’S FAILURE TO COMPLY

WITH THIS COURT’S DECEMBER 5,

2006 ORDER REGARDING

DOWNSTREAM PRODUCTS

[DOC. NO. 744]

On October 6, 2006, Broadcom filed a motion to compel discovery

related to, among other things, Qualcomm’s downstream products. Doc.

No. 306. The Court heard oral argument on Broadcom’s motion on November

2, 2006, and issued an Order memorializing its rulings soon thereafter.

Doc. No. 407 (Order summarizing the Court’s rulings on the parties’

multiple discovery motions). With regard to downstream products, the

Court granted Broadcom’s request for additional documents and

interrogatory responses, but denied its request for another Rule

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 864 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 10
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

1

 Qualcomm describes its SR Database as a ticketing system that permits third

party database users, including Qualcomm customers, to communicate with Qualcomm about

Qualcomm products. See Lacey Decl. at ¶ 2. Qualcomm explains that SR Database users

enter information on SR ticket forms, each of which is assigned a unique SR number.

Id. Qualcomm defines the collection of all information in the SR Database

corresponding to a particular SR number as a SR record. Id.

2

 Notably, the Court modified the final paragraph of the stipulation, in which

the parties reserved their rights to file further discovery motions, as follows:

“Discovery in this case closed on 10/2/06 and all discovery motions were required to

be filed on or before 10/6/06. Doc. No. 273. Accordingly, the Court will NOT consider

any new motions to compel or any other discovery motions.” Doc. No. 487 at 5 (emphasis

in original).

2 05cv1392-B (BLM)

30(b)(6) witness on this issue. Id. at 4.

On December 1, 2006, the parties submitted for the Court’s review

a stipulation setting forth the parties’ respective obligations

regarding the timely production of discovery related to downstream

products. See Spuhler Decl. Ex. 4. In relevant part, Qualcomm agreed

to produce all documents responsive to Broadcom’s downstream productrelated discovery by December 22, 2006, and Broadcom, after receipt and

review of such documents, agreed to provide a reasonable set of search

terms for Qualcomm’s use when performing searches of its Service Request

(“SR”) Database.1 Id. at 2-3. The parties further agreed to “engage in

their best efforts to complete agreement on the searches and production

of documents prior to December 31, 2006.” Id. at 3. The Court entered

the parties’ stipulation—with various procedural modifications—on

December 5, 2006 (the “December 5th Order”).2 Doc. No. 487.

Broadcom subsequently provided to Qualcomm a preliminary list of

terms for Qualcomm’s search of its SR Database. Def’s Mem. at 4; see

also 2nd Spuhler Decl. Ex. 6 (e-mail attaching preliminary list of

search terms). The parties then exchanged a series of e-mails debating

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 864 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 10
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

3 05cv1392-B (BLM)

the reasonableness of Broadcom’s proposed search terms and the

appropriate scope of Qualcomm’s database search. See Venkatesan Decl.

Exs. 8-13; see also 2nd Spuhler Decl. Ex. 7. Unable to reach an

agreement on these issues, Broadcom filed the motion for sanctions

currently before the Court.

Through the instant motion, Broadcom seeks preclusive sanctions for

Qualcomm’s alleged failure to produce discovery related to downstream

products, and more specifically, for Qualcomm’s refusal to perform what

Broadcom contends are reasonable searches of Qualcomm’s SR Database.

Def’s Mem. at 1, 5-9. In the alternative, Broadcom seeks the immediate

production of an electronic copy of Qualcomm’s SR Database. Id. at 1,

8-9. Qualcomm opposed Broadcom’s motion on February 27, 2007, and

Broadcom filed a reply on March 2, 2007. The Court found the briefing

suitable for decision on the papers and without oral argument, taking

the matter under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

Doc. No. 827.

Having considered the arguments presented and all supporting

documents submitted, and for the reasons set forth below, Broadcom’s

Motion for Sanctions Regarding Qualcomm’s Failure to Comply with this

Court’s December 5, 2006 Order Regarding Downstream Products is GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Doc. No. 744.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are vested with the authority to sanction litigants

for discovery abuses under both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

pursuant to the court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the judicial

process. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-46 (1991); Aloe

Vera of Am., Inc. v. United States, 376 F.3d 960, 964-65 (9th Cir.

2004)). Where a party fails to comply with a discovery order, Federal

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 864 Filed 03/13/07 Page 3 of 10
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

4 05cv1392-B (BLM)

Rule 37 authorizes the court to impose a range of sanctions, including

taking facts as established, precluding evidence, and dismissing the

action or entering default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2).

Regardless of whether sanctions are imposed under the Federal Rules or

pursuant to a court’s inherent power, the decision to impose sanctions

lies within the sound discretion of the court. See Lasar v. Ford Motor

Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1109-14 (9th Cir. 2005) (reviewing sanctions imposed

under the court’s inherent power); Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503,

510 (9th Cir. 1997) (upholding sanctions imposed under the Federal

Rules).

Of those sanctions a court may select when applying Federal Rule

37, preclusion of evidence is among the most severe. Under certain

circumstances, preclusive sanctions may be tantamount to dismissal, and

in such cases, they are appropriate only where the violations at issue

are willful or in bad faith. See United States v. Sumitomo Marine &

Fire Ins. Co., 617 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1980); Commodity Futures

Trading Comm’n v. Noble Metals Int’l, Inc., 67 F.3d 766, 771 (9th Cir.

1995). Moreover, “[e]xclusion sanctions based on alleged discovery

violations are generally improper absent undue prejudice to the opposing

side.” Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Inc. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp., 190

F.R.D. 644, 648 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (citing Wendt v. Host Int’l, Inc., 125

F.3d 806, 814 (9th Cir. 1997)). The movant bears the burden of

presenting evidence that it suffered “undue prejudice” as a result of

its opponent’s alleged misconduct. See Amersham, 190 F.R.D. at 648.

DISCUSSION

Broadcom contends that Qualcomm’s calculated delay in its

production of court-ordered discovery related to downstream products

warrants the imposition of preclusive sanctions. Def’s Mem. at 5-8. In

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 864 Filed 03/13/07 Page 4 of 10
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

5 05cv1392-B (BLM)

particular, Broadcom alleges that Qualcomm’s refusals to search its SR

Database for select network operators, specific handset manufacturers,

accused product part numbers, standard subsections, and other narrow

search terms identified by Broadcom are not only improper, but in at

least some instances, disregard the plain language of the Court’s

December 5th Order. Id.; see also Spuhler Decl. Ex. 4 at 2-3. Broadcom

also takes issue with Qualcomm’s refusals to perform searches that might

yield numerous hits, insisting that Qualcomm should not be allowed to

renege on its stipulated obligations simply because agreed-upon searches

may require more effort than Qualcomm originally expected. Def’s Mem.

at 6. In short, Broadcom complains that Qualcomm has unilaterally

limited its search of the SR Database to those terms Qualcomm itself

selected, while refusing to inform Broadcom what search terms (or

combination of search terms) it opted to use. Id. at 7. Broadcom

maintains that such gamesmanship, beginning with Qualcomm’s initial

misrepresentations regarding its efforts to track downstream products,

cannot remain unchecked. Id. at 1, 7-9; see also Spuhler Decl. Ex. 1

(attaching hearing transcript excerpts in which Qualcomm’s counsel

denied that Qualcomm formally collects information regarding downstream

products). Broadcom therefore requests that Qualcomm be precluded from

offering evidence that it is not liable for indirect infringement.

Def’s Mem. at 1, 7-9. As noted above, Broadcom alternatively requests

that Qualcomm be ordered to make an electronic copy of its SR Database

available for immediate inspection. Id.

Emphasizing that it has produced over ten thousand pages of SR

Database documents, Qualcomm denies that it has somehow failed to comply

with the December 5th Order, or that its conduct warrants any sanction.

Plf’s Corr. Opp. at 1, 4; see also Venkatesan Decl. at ¶ 8. In fact,

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 864 Filed 03/13/07 Page 5 of 10
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

3

 Given the difficulty involved in searching the SR Database, Qualcomm also

argues that the breadth of Broadcom’s proposed searches, coupled with Broadcom’s

failure to provide a final list of search terms, would render Qualcomm’s obligations

under the December 5th Order unduly burdensome. Plf’s Corr. Opp. at 8-9; see also

Lacey Decl. ¶¶ 10-14, 16-18 (describing the difficulties involved in searching the SR

Database).

4

 Qualcomm also argues that Broadcom’s motion is barred by the plain language

of the December 5th Order. Plf’s Corr. Opp. at 5-6; see also Venkatesan Decl. Ex. 6

at 5. As noted above, the December 5th Order advised that the Court would not consider

any new motions to compel or other such discovery motions. See Doc. No. 487 at 5.

6 05cv1392-B (BLM)

Qualcomm contends that it is Broadcom’s failure to propose reasonable

search terms, rather than its own alleged failure to fulfill its

obligations under the December 5th Order that has delayed the production

of discovery related to downstream products. Plf’s Corr. Opp. at 1.

According to Qualcomm, Broadcom’s interpretation of what constitutes a

“reasonable set of search terms” contemplates any search term relating

to inducement—in effect, nearly anything germane to this case. Id. at

6. Qualcomm asserts that Broadcom’s reading both exaggerates the scope

of the discovery authorized by the Court and evidences Broadcom’s

attempts to obtain discovery that the Court has already declared

irrelevant and non-responsive.3 Id. at 7-8. For all these reasons,

Qualcomm asks that Broadcom’s request for preclusive sanctions be

denied.4

 Id. at 9-10. Finally, Qualcomm claims that Broadcom’s request

for an electronic copy of the SR Database is infeasible, see Lacey Decl.

¶¶ 20-21, and proposes instead that Broadcom accept a dedicated,

networked laptop computer connected to a complete copy of the SR

Database. Plf’s Corr. Opp. at 10-11.

In reply, Broadcom continues to argue that Qualcomm’s conduct

warrants the imposition of preclusive sanctions. Def’s Reply at 1.

Moreover, Broadcom considers Qualcomm’s offer to make its SR Database

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 864 Filed 03/13/07 Page 6 of 10
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

7 05cv1392-B (BLM)

available a “hollow compromise,” claiming that Qualcomm unjustifiably

refuses to allow Broadcom access to the database beyond March 23, 2007.

Id. at 1-2, 6. Broadcom contends that limiting access to the SR

Database to so brief a period—a period during which the parties must

attend numerous hearings and prepare multiple pre-trial filings—would

ensure that Broadcom is deprived of any ability to complete a meaningful

analysis of the database. Id. Broadcom therefore requests that the

Court sanction Qualcomm for its continued misconduct, or alternatively,

require Qualcomm to make its SR Database available for inspection

through April 20, 2007. Id. at 1-3, 6.

As a preliminary matter, the Court recognizes that the December 5th

Order expressly advised that it would not entertain “any new motions to

compel or any other discovery motions” in light of the long-passed

discovery deadline. See Doc. No. 487 at 5. Indeed, as long ago as

September 26, 2006, the Court notified the parties that “any and all

remaining fact discovery disputes” were to be raised on or before

October 6, 2006. See Doc. No. 273 at 2-3. Despite these instructions,

the parties have on more than one occasion been unable to resolve

additional discovery disputes without the Court’s assistance. In fact,

both parties have submitted (and continue to submit) discovery motions

well after the discovery cutoff. See Doc. Nos. 405, 417, 424, 434, 595,

742, 835. Under these circumstances, and considering the parties’

continued inability to exchange relevant discovery without engaging in

motion practice, the Court finds it inappropriate to decline to

entertain Broadcom’s motion.

Turning to the merits of Broadcom’s motion, the Court finds that

the delay in Qualcomm’s production of discovery related to downstream

products does not warrant the severe penalty of preclusive sanctions.

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 864 Filed 03/13/07 Page 7 of 10
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

8 05cv1392-B (BLM)

As emphasized above, preclusive sanctions are among the most severe a

court may impose, and, where the equivalent of a dismissal, are only

appropriate upon a showing of willfulness or bad faith. See Sumitomo,

617 F.2d at 1369; Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 67 F.3d at 771. On

the record presented, the Court discerns neither a clear violation of

the December 5th order by Qualcomm, nor the willful or calculated effort

to frustrate the discovery process that Broadcom describes. Id.

Rather, the Court views the instant dispute as little more than an

ongoing disagreement regarding the appropriate scope of Qualcomm’s

search of its SR Database, a dispute occasioned by the ambiguous

language selected by the parties in defining their respective

obligations with regard to downstream products discovery. Such a

dispute is a far cry from the calculated misconduct Broadcom attributes

to Qualcomm, and the delay resulting from that dispute does not warrant

the harsh sanction Broadcom requests. See Amersham, 190 F.R.D. at 649

(underlining that “[p]reclusion of evidence or testimony is a grave

step, and is by no means an automatic response to a delayed disclosure”)

(citation omitted).

Moreover, the Court finds that Broadcom fails to meet its burden of

presenting evidence of “undue prejudice” as a result of the delayed

discovery. Id. at 648 (underlining that preclusive sanctions are

“generally improper” absent such a showing). The record reveals that

Qualcomm has produced a significant number of documents both responsive

to Broadcom’s downstream products discovery requests and derived from

its SR Database. See Plf’s Corr. Opp. at 1, 4, 9; Venkatesan Decl. at

¶ 8. Qualcomm also has performed searches using at least some of the

search terms Broadcom has proposed. See Plf’s Corr. Opp. at 1, 5, 8-9;

see also Lacey Decl. ¶¶ 16-18. In short, the record reveals that it is

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 864 Filed 03/13/07 Page 8 of 10
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

9 05cv1392-B (BLM)

the parties’ dueling interpretations of what constitutes “reasonable”

search terms that has stalled the discovery process, not any single

party’s alleged misconduct. Compare Def’s Mem. at 5-7 with Plf’s Corr.

Opp. at 1, 3-8. On this record, and absent a clear indication of “undue

prejudice” to Broadcom, the Court finds preclusive sanctions are

unjustified. See Amersham, 190 F.R.D. at 648. As such, Broadcom’s

motion for preclusive sanctions is DENIED.

On the other hand, the Court finds that Broadcom’s alternate

request for immediate access to Qualcomm’s SR Database will best address

the parties’ stalemate with regard to the December 5th Order. Such

comprehensive access, with the exception of privileged materials, will

remedy the ongoing delay in production of discovery related to

downstream products, and perhaps more importantly, will obviate any need

for the parties’ agreement on the appropriate scope of a “reasonable set

of search terms.” Accordingly, Broadcom’s request for immediate access

to Qualcomm’s SR Database is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Qualcomm shall provide for Broadcom’s use a laptop computer connected to

an off-line version of its SR Database under the conditions identified

more fully below. Considering the rigorous pre-trial schedule currently

in place, the Court finds it appropriate to grant Broadcom access to

Qualcomm’s SR Database beginning on March 16, 2007 and continuing

through and including April 13, 2007.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Broadcom’s Motion for Sanctions Regarding Qualcomm’s

Failure to Comply with this Court’s December 5, 2006 Order Regarding

Downstream Products is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Doc. No.

744.

///

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 864 Filed 03/13/07 Page 9 of 10
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

5

 In particular, the laptop computer shall be configured to provide access to

the off-line SR Database through the “Oracle Advanced Search” tool used by Qualcomm

engineers. The Oracle Advanced Search tool will provide Broadcom with the ability to

search for and view all records contained in the off-line version of Qualcomm’s SR

Database, excepting privileged materials.

10 05cv1392-B (BLM)

Broadcom’s request for the imposition of preclusive sanctions is

DENIED.

Broadcom’s request for immediate access to Qualcomm’s SR Database

is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. On or before March 16, 2007,

Qualcomm is ordered to provide for Broadcom’s use a laptop computer with

a VPN connection to an off-line version of Qualcomm’s entire SR

Database, with the exception of any privileged materials contained

therein. Qualcomm is further ordered to provide to Broadcom the same

search capability and client tools used by Qualcomm engineers, again

excepting that capability or those tools that might disclose privileged

material.5 Finally, Qualcomm is ordered to provide Broadcom with a one

(1) hour training tutorial and written instructions regarding how to use

the SR Database and the Oracle Advanced Search tool. Broadcom shall

have access to the above-described version of Qualcomm’s SR Database

continuing through and including April 13, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2007

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO:

HONORABLE RUDI M. BREWSTER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 864 Filed 03/13/07 Page 10 of 10