Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06946/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06946-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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

FINJAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZSCALER, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-06946-JST (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 101

Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. filed the instant suit against Defendant Zscaler, Inc., alleging patent 

infringement. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On January 23, 2019, the parties filed a joint discovery letter 

regarding the production of the e-mails of Mr. Tim Warner, a United Kingdom citizen. 

(Discovery Letter, Dkt. No. 101.) Having reviewed the letter, the Court GRANTS the relief 

sought by Plaintiff.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff owns patents involving computer security. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8.) One of its patented 

products was a Secure Web Gateway ("SWG"). (Discovery Letter at 1.) In 2009, Plaintiff sold its 

business and a license to sell its products to M86, but kept the rights to the intellectual property. 

(Id.) In 2012, Trustwave acquired M86 and the rights to sell Plaintiff's former products.

In October 2018, Plaintiff sought the production of e-mails from Mr. Warner. Mr. Warner 

previously directed Plaintiff's U.K. sales from 2002 to 2010. (Discovery Letter at 1.) During the 

transition to M86, Mr. Warner directed the sales of Plaintiff's products for M86 from 2010 to 

2012. (Id.) When M86 was acquired by Trustwave, Mr. Warner continued to sell Plaintiff's SWG 

for Trustwave in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. (Id.) In 2014, Mr. Warner left Trustwave 

and began working for Defendant, and is now Defendant's director of all sales to any business or 

Case 3:17-cv-06946-JST Document 113 Filed 02/14/19 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

government entity in the U.K. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Warner has "intimate knowledge" of 

Plaintiff's patented technology, and was familiar with all of the SWG's technical aspects and 

"could explain them inside out." (Id.)

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant asserts that it cannot produce Mr. Warner's e-mails without violating European 

privacy requirements contained in the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"), which 

became effective in May 2018. (Discovery Letter at 3.) Defendant states that the GDPR limits 

"discovery of personal data to that which is objectively relevant to the issues being litigated." (Id.

at 4.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff's overbroad search terms would require the production of 

unnecessary personal data, and that such data would need to be anonymized or redacted. (Id.) 

Defendant further contends that the anonymization cost may be great, and therefore Plaintiff 

should split the cost. (Id.) Defendant thus proposes that the discovery be staged so that it not 

produce Mr. Warner's e-mails until after production from domestic custodians, amend the 

Protective order to address permanent redactions, and require splitting the costs of anonymization. 

(Id.) Plaintiff responds that anonymization would impede its review of the e-mails, and that 

Defendant could have produced the e-mails as "Attorney's Eyes Only" to satisfy the GDPR. (Id. at 

1-2.)

In general, a foreign country's statute precluding disclosure of evidence "do not deprive an 

American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence even 

though the act of production may violate that statute." Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale 

v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 544 n.29 (1987). In determining whether the 

foreign statute excuses noncompliance with the discovery order, courts consider: (1) the 

importance of the documents or other information requested to the litigation; (2) the degree of 

specificity of the request; (3) whether the information originated in the United States; (4) the 

availability of alternative means of securing the information; and (5) the extent to which 

noncompliance would undermine important interests of the United States. Richmark Corp. v. 

Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1475 (9th Cir. 1992). These factors are not exclusive; 

the courts also consider "the extent and the nature of the hardship that inconsistent enforcement 

Case 3:17-cv-06946-JST Document 113 Filed 02/14/19 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

would impose upon the person," as well as "the extent to which enforcement by action of either 

state can reasonably be expected to achieve compliance with the rule prescribed by the state." Id.

(internal quotation omitted).

First, the Court considers the importance of the documents at issue. "Where the evidence 

is directly relevant, [the Ninth Circuit has] found this factor to weigh in favor of disclosure." 

Richmark, 959 F.2d at 1468. Courts, however, "have refused to require production where the 

documents sought are largely cumulative of records already produced." United States v. Vetco, 

Inc., 691 F.2d 1281, 1290 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff contends that Mr. Warner's e-mails may prove 

the fact and timing of Defendant's infringement, which would also go to willfulness. (Discovery 

Letter at 1.) Defendant responds that the e-mails could be duplicative of production from 

domestic custodians. (Id. at 4.) The Court finds that Mr. Warner's e-mails are directly relevant to 

the infringement issue, particularly given his overlapping roles at Plaintiff, Defendant, M86, and 

Trustwave, and his personal knowledge of the technical aspects of the patented technology. 

Furthermore, Defendant's argument of duplication is hypothetical, as Defendant admits that they 

have not done a search of Mr. Warner's e-mails. (See id. at 5 (stating that the search terms could 

"return[] potentially thousands of documents") (emphasis added).) Thus, the Court finds that 

Defendant "ha[s] made no showing that the documents are cumulative of records already 

produced." Vetco, 691 F.2d at 1290. This factor weighs in favor of disclosure.

Second, the Court reviews the specificity of the request. Defendant challenges the 

specificity of the request, arguing that Plaintiff's five proposed search terms -- "Finjan," "zero*day 

or zeroday or 0*day," "malicious," "obfuscat*," and sandbox* -- are "overbroad." (Def.'s St. at 4.) 

Specifically, Defendant contends that the search terms should be limited to "Finjan" and the 

asserted patent numbers, rather than the technical terms requested by Plaintiff. (Id. at 5.) The 

Court disagrees. Rather than requesting all of Mr. Warner's e-mails, Plaintiff has limited its 

request to itself and terms related to the patents at issue. (See Compl. ¶¶ 12, 15 (describing '633 

and '494 Patents as concerning "Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and 

Methods"), 31 (explaining that Defendant's allegedly infringing Cloud Sandbox technology is 

designed to prevent zero-day exploits).) Limiting the e-mail search to those that identify the 

Case 3:17-cv-06946-JST Document 113 Filed 02/14/19 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

patents by number, as Defendant proposes, would eliminate e-mails discussing the patents that do 

not refer to the patents by number, even if those e-mails discuss the content of the patents or refer 

to the patent by name. The Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of disclosure.

Third, the Court considers where the information is located, or the location of information 

and parties. Here, although Mr. Warner is located in the U.K., Defendant itself is an American 

company, subject to American discovery law. (Discovery Letter at 2.) This factor weighs 

somewhat in favor of disclosure. See Vetco, 691 F.2d at 1290 (finding that this factor did not alter 

the conclusion that the discovery be allowed because the discovery would take place both in 

America and Switzerland, as the records would be shipped out of Switzerland and the production 

to the requesting party would take place in America); contrast with Richmark Corp., 959 F.2d at 

1475 (finding this factor did not weigh in favor of discovery where the responding party had no 

American office).

Fourth, the Court considers the availability of alternative means of obtaining the 

information. "If the information sought can easily be obtained elsewhere, there is little or no 

reason to require a party to violate foreign law." Richmark Corp., 959 F.2d at 1475. "[T]he 

alternative means must be 'substantially equivalent' to the requested discovery." Id. Defendant 

contends that the information could be produced by domestic custodians. (Discovery Letter at 4.) 

As discussed above, however, Defendant does not substantiate this claim as it has not done a 

search of Mr. Warner's e-mails -- nor is it clear that Defendant has finished its production by 

domestic custodians -- so it is not clear the domestic custodians would have the same information. 

Alternatively, Defendant proposes redacting all personal information, but this would not be a 

substantially equivalent alternative when the third parties are relevant to determining who Mr. 

Warner communicated with about the issues in this case. (See id. at 3, 4; Vetco, 691 F.2d at 1290 

("Masking the names of third parties is not a substantially equivalent alternative since the 

identities of the third party is relevant . . . . .").) This factor favors disclosure.

Fifth, the Court considers the balance of national interests. "This is the most important 

factor," and requires that the Court "assess the interests of each nation in requiring or prohibiting 

disclosure, and determine whether disclosure would affect important substantive policies or 

Case 3:17-cv-06946-JST Document 113 Filed 02/14/19 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

interests . . . ." Richmark Corp., 959 F.2d at 1476. Courts have found that there is a strong 

American interest in protecting American patents. See Work v. Bier, 106 F.R.D. 45, 55 (D.D.C. 

1985) ("the litigation here implicates United States interests of a constitutional magnitude in 

connection with its administration of its patent laws under U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 8, cl. 8"); Dyson, 

Inc. v. SharkNinja Operating LLC, No. 1:14-cv-779, 2016 WL 5720702, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 

2016) ("non-compliance with the discovery request would undermine the United States' interests 

in ensuring that patent suits are fully and fairly litigated"). While the U.K. has an interest in 

protecting the privacy of its citizens, courts have also recognized that an interest in protecting 

privacy "is diminished where the court has entered a protective order preventing disclosure of the 

secret information." Masimo Corp. v. Mindray DS USA, Inc., Case No.: SACV 12-02206-

CJC(JPRx), 2014 WL 12589321, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 28, 2014); see also Vetco, 691 F.2d at 1289 

(finding that Switzerland's interest in protecting privacy was "diminished where the party seeking 

the records is the IRS, which is required by law to keep the information confidential"). Here, there 

is a protective order, and Plaintiff has agreed to allow Defendant to mark the e-mails as highly 

confidential. (See Discovery Letter at 2-3.) Additionally, it is not clear to what extent the U.K.'s 

interest in privacy is implicated, as Defendant states that the GDPR permits "the discovery of 

personal data to that which is objectively relevant to the issues being litigated." (Discovery Letter 

at 4 (internal quotation omitted).) Given Mr. Warner's role and the limited search terms, 

disclosure of the e-mails that are directly relevant to the instant case would appear to not violate 

the GDPR. Thus, considering the significant American interest in protecting its patents and the 

reduced U.K. interest in protecting the privacy of its citizens, the Court concludes that this factor 

weighs heavily in favor of disclosure.

In addition to the five factors, the Court also finds that the burden on Defendant does not 

weigh against disclosure. "The party relying on foreign law has the burden of showing that such 

law bars production." Vetco, 691 F.2d at 1289. As discussed above, it is not clear that Defendant 

would be barred from producing Mr. Warner's e-mails under the GDPR, given that e-mails that are 

relevant can be produced, and Defendant has apparently not yet done a search of Mr. Warner's emails. Further, other courts have found that the burden of showing that the law bars production is 

Case 3:17-cv-06946-JST Document 113 Filed 02/14/19 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

not satisfied where there is no evidence of the extent to which the government enforces its laws. 

See Masimo Corp., 2014 WL 12589321, at *3; In re Air Crash at Taipei, Taiwan on Oct. 31, 

2000, 211 F.R.D. 374, 380 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (finding that hardship was not a factor weighing 

against disclosure where the producing party presented no "evidence regarding the manner and 

extent to which Singapore enforces its secrecy laws"). Here, Defendant provides no information 

on the likelihood of enforcement.

Taken together, the Court concludes that the GDPR does not preclude the Court from 

ordering Defendant to produce the requested e-mails in an unredacted form, subject to the existing 

protective order. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS Defendant to produce Mr. Warner's emails. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-06946-JST Document 113 Filed 02/14/19 Page 6 of 6