Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05831/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05831-19/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FORTINET, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SOPHOS, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 13-cv-05831-EMC (DMR) 

SECOND ORDER RE: JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER 

Re: Dkt. No. 177 

Before the court is a joint discovery letter filed by Plaintiff Fortinet, Inc. and Defendant 

Sophos, Inc. [Docket No. 177.] In the letter, Sophos moves, inter alia, to compel Fortinet to 

provide additional documents responsive to Sophos’s Requests for Production of Documents 

(“RFP”) and further deposition testimony on certain Rule 30(b)(6) topics: 

Rodney Mock documents. Sophos claims that during his 

deposition, Rodney Mock identified “proof of concept” and “deal 

flow” documents that Fortinet has yet to produce. Fortinet’s portion 

of the joint letter does not address these documents. 

Deposition of Rule 30(b)(6) witness James Bray. Sophos 

contends that James Bray, Fortinet’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee for 

financial topics, was not prepared to testify about all the topics for 

which he was designated because he could not (1) provide the dates 

of the first sale or offer for sale of any of the accused products, (2) 

provide more than a superficial explanation of the spreadsheets, and 

(3) answer “many financial-related questions.” Fortinet disputes 

Sophos’s characterization of Bray’s testimony and notes that Sophos 

ended the deposition with no remarks about Bray’s lack of 

preparedness and no attempt to hold the deposition open. Bray was 

deposed on the same day that the parties filed the joint letter. 

Documents about which Bray testified. Sophos contends that 

Bray testified about certain reports and documents, but that none of 

those documents have been produced. Fortinet is willing to produce 

additional documents if Sophos appropriately tailors its requests, but 

notes that requests for reports containing “forecasts” and “budget 

information” and “expenses” are not meaningfully limited discovery 

demands to which Fortinet can respond. 

Case 3:13-cv-05831-EMC Document 187 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

ade

Do

par

pag

inte

Da

It is cle

equately met

ocket No. 17

rties are orde

ges by Augu

ervention. 

IT IS S

ated: July 22,

Emails for

Sophos con

from Fortin

Nelson in re

RFPs requir

of Xie, Cr

Sophos’s s

search for 

custodian, a

counsel for 

the RFPs at

[Forti! and 

RFP it appe

The parties

Sophos how

claims are 

provides som

ear from the p

t and conferr

7 addressing

ered to meet 

ust 3, 2015 a

SO ORDER

, 2015 

r Michael

ntends that F

net employe

esponse to S

res Fortinet t

rawford, or 

earch terms

[Forti! and 

and also arg

communica

tached as an

change!] an

ears to be ra

 also quarre

w many hits

too burde

me of this in

parties’ disc

red about ea

g the above d

and confer 

at 9:00 a.m.

RED. 

2

Xie, Jeff 

Fortinet has p

ees Michael 

Sophos’s RF

to run specif

Nelson. F

s are undul

change!] r

gues that on

ations with o

n exhibit to t

nd Fortinet d

aising an att

el over whe

s are returne

ensome, ev

nformation in

connected ha

ach party’s p

disputes are 

about these 

 if they are u

___

Crawford, 

produced so

l Xie, Jeff 

FPs Nos. 110

fic search te

Fortinet resp

ly burdenso

returns 19,0

ne RFP ask

outside couns

the letter inc

does not clea

ttorney-clien

ether Fortin

ed for the se

ven though 

n its portion 

alves of the j

osition on th

therefore de

disputes, and

unable to res

__________

 Un

and Todd

ome but not 

Crawford, a

0-116. Each

rms in the d

ponds that 

ome, e.g., b

000 emails 

ks Fortinet’s

sel; however

clude the sea

arly indicate

nt privilege o

net is requir

earch string

Fortinet a

of the joint 

oint letter th

he above disp

enied withou

d file a joint

solve the ma

___________

Donna M. 

nited States M

d Nelson. 

all emails 

and Todd 

h of these 

documents 

some of 

because a 

from one 

 in-house 

r, none of 

arch terms 

e to which 

objection. 

ed to tell 

s Fortinet 

apparently 

letter. 

hat they have

putes. The p

ut prejudice

t letter of no 

atters withou

__________

Ryu 

Magistrate J

e not 

portions of 

e. The 

more than 6

ut judicial 

________ 

Judge 

6

Case 3:13-cv-05831-EMC Document 187 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 2