Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01317/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01317-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:183 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

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed: August 19, 2014*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 

and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiffs, v.

GOOGLE INC. and YOUTUBE, LLC,

Defendants. ____________________________________/

No. C13-01317 EJD (HRL)

ORDER RE DDJR #2 – #7

[Re: Docket Nos. 288-293]

The opening sentence of the undersigned’s Standing Order re: Civil Discovery Disputes 

states: “The parties and counsel are cautioned not to allow discovery disagreements to drag on 

unresolved until some important looming deadline forces them into action.” Nevertheless, one week 

after fact discovery closed, the deadline for requesting orders to compel discovery, the parties filed 

six (6) discovery dispute joint reports (“DDJR”). The Standing Order also requires lead counsel to 

meet in person “for as long as and as often as is needed to reach full agreement.” Here, all six 

DDJRs are based on a single meet-and-confer, which it appears was more of a token meeting than a 

good faith attempt to resolve the parties’ discovery disputes without judicial intervention, as 

evidenced by their “final and most reasonable” proposals (required by the Standing Order), which

are simply blanket demands for all requested discovery and corresponding denials of the requests in 

their entirety. Despite the questionable compliance with the undersigned’s Standing Order, the 

Court attempts to resolve each dispute as fairly as circumstances permit.

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 325 Filed 08/19/14 Page 1 of 10
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

For the Northern District of California

BACKGROUND

PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”) sues Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC 

(collectively, “Google”) alleging that several of its patents are infringed by Google’s query-serving 

system, certain Google infrastructure systems, and YouTube’s Content Management system. In 

DDDJR #2 through #5, PersonalWeb seeks orders compelling Google to produce documents and 

information related to (#2) revenues and costs savings, (#3) preservation of documents, and (#4) the 

new version of Blobstore, as well as (#5) to present for deposition a corporate witness on 

willfulness. In DDJR #6 and #7, Google requests an order compelling PersonalWeb to (#6) 

supplement various discovery requests related to Google’s identified prior art, and (#7) produce a 

claim chart to demonstrate how PersonalWeb’s own product practices the alleged infringed patents. 

DISCUSSION

A. Discovery Dispute Joint Report #2 – Revenue and Costs Savings

1. Roszak Deposition

PersonalWeb first asserts that the deposition of Google’s 30(b)(6) witness for financial 

topics, Michael Roszak, revealed four categories of purportedly relevant financial information

which Google has not produced, including: (1) documents Roszak reviewed in preparation for his 

deposition which reflected Google’s search-related financials, such as profit and loss statements and 

cost reports; (2) documents reflecting ad-related revenue and costs associated with searches for each 

Google service that uses Google’s Query Serving System; (3) documents reflecting Google 

AdWords and AdSense financials; and (4) documents reflecting the amount of data center capacity 

for Google services that use the accused systems. According to PersonalWeb, it specifically 

requested these missing documents after the deposition. Google purportedly replied that it was 

looking into it and then asserted that the documents had already been produced; however, it would 

not respond when asked to identify the documents by their Bates numbers.

According to Google, only one document not previously produced was reviewed by Roszak 

prior to his deposition – an old email defining a financial term, which was subsequently produced – 

and all the requested information pertaining to profit and loss statements or cost reports is contained 

in Exhibits 4-8 and 14-17 to Roszak’s deposition.

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 325 Filed 08/19/14 Page 2 of 10
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

For the Northern District of California

Additionally, Google asserts that it long ago produced discovery regarding ads-related 

revenue, despite the fact that it is irrelevant because it bears no relationship to the accused systems. 

Moreover, Google maintains that PersonalWeb’s request for ad-related revenue and costs 

information related to the “Query Serving System” (a term coined by PersonalWeb) is inapplicable 

because, as Roszak testified, that term has no meaning within Google’s financial information. 

Furthermore, despite the alleged irrelevance and inapplicability of the request, Google asserts it 

conducted a reasonable investigation for further responsive documents, and none were located. 

Similarly, Google argues that financials for AdWords are irrelevant, yet it produced them 

anyway. PersonalWeb even marked the documents as exhibits during the deposition, and Roszak

confirmed that they reflected AdWords revenues. Roszak further explained that “AdSense” 

revenues have nothing to do with revenue for ads placed against searches. Google points out that 

PersonalWeb has made no showing to the contrary, and therefore the information requested here 

was already produced or not relevant.

Finally, with respect to the data center capacity, Google again asserts that this information 

was produced prior to and used as exhibits during the Roszak deposition. Thus, it maintains there is 

nothing to compel.

2. Latency Reductions

PersonalWeb asserts that “Google has failed to produce any documents associated with 

Google’s decision to transition within its Query Serving System over the past five years from a 

Tokenspace index to a direct index in Mustang and TeraGoogle, including specifically documents 

associated with any quantification of the latency improvement for search results associated with this 

transition.” PersonalWeb does not believe Google’s contention that it has not analyzed how this 

infrastructure change has benefitted the company. Likewise, Google has not produced 

documentation of cost savings related to latency reductions, despite its oft stated claim that “every 

‘millisecond of search latency’ costs the company ‘about $1 million/year in lost revenue.’”

Google responds that such documents simply do not exist, and PersonalWeb’s speculation 

otherwise does not make it so. Google explains that the transition from a Tokenspace index to a 

direct index was just a single part of a larger project, and Google does not have additional analyses 

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 325 Filed 08/19/14 Page 3 of 10
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

For the Northern District of California

of that individual feature beyond that already produced. Additionally, the statement that every 

millisecond of latency costs $1 million/year is based on an anecdotal email, not any hard data. In 

fact, Google’s 30(b)(6) witness on this issue testified that he is unaware of anything that confirms 

that anecdotal statement, and that his numerous studies on latency concluded that no correlation 

exists between small latency changes and revenue – studies which Google produced. Another 

Google witness provided similar testimony.

3. Blobstore

PersonalWeb asserts that Google will not produce cost data related to the accused system 

Blobstore, including various categories of information PersonalWeb specifically requested. 

PersonalWeb argues that Google’s position taken at the meet and confer, that such information was 

irrelevant, is contrary to law – money saved by a company through use of an infringing system is 

clearly relevant and withholding such information is prejudicial.

Google denies having refused to produce such information; it simply had not finished its 

production at the time of the meet and confer, which occurred prior to the fact discovery cutoff.

Regardless, Google asserts that it did produce available information on the specific categories 

PersonalWeb requested.

4. Conclusion

PersonalWeb generally requests numerous sub-categories of documents that it asserts

Google has not produced. Google generally counters that the requested information was already 

produced, does not exist, or in some cases, is irrelevant. Google’s rebuttal has sufficiently 

overcome PersonalWeb’s generalizations of deficient production. Of course, there may be some 

responsive documents that have been unintentionally withheld, but the Court thinks that Google’s 

ongoing duty to supplement is a sufficient enforcement mechanism, and an order to compel is not 

warranted. Accordingly, PersonalWeb’s request for relief in DDJR #2 is denied.

B. Discovery Dispute Joint Report #3 – Preservation of Documents

“PersonalWeb seeks an order compelling Defendants to produce immediately Defendants’ 

document retention policies and litigation hold notices issued in this case, or documents and 

information sufficient to identify the content of Google’s litigation hold notices, the dates the 

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 325 Filed 08/19/14 Page 4 of 10
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

For the Northern District of California

notices were circulated and the recipients of such notices, and what categories of information 

Google’s employees were instructed to preserve and collect.” Google asks the Court to deny the 

request in its entirety.

PersonalWeb bases its request on Interrogatory No. 11, served on August 31, 2012, which 

requested, among other things, that Google describe its email retention policies as well as any 

changes made thereto since it received notice of the litigation. Google’s supplemental response in 

November 2012 stated that Google would produce “copies of any document retention policies in 

effect at the time PersonalWeb filed its Complaint and documents sufficient to identify any 

subsequent changes to such policies.” PersonalWeb asserts that no such documents or information 

were ever produced or identified. A few months later, PersonalWeb deposed Ms. Zmrhal, the 

project manager for Google’s electronic discovery group. In March 2014, more than one year later, 

PersonalWeb sent Google an email noting that despite the representations made in its November 

2012 supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 11, PersonalWeb had not received any documents 

identifying changes to its retention policies, including, specifically, documents identifying any 

litigation holds. Then, at the meet and confer in April, Google asserted, purportedly for the first 

time, that such information was privileged. PersonalWeb disputes that the information is privileged,

citing In re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, No. C 07-01882 JF (RS), 2007 WL 2852364 (N.D. Cal. 

Oct. 2, 2007) (hereinafter, “eBay”). 

First, Google argues that even if its initial production were deficient, which it denies, 

PersonalWeb’s more than one-year delay in following up on its discovery request demonstrates a 

lack of good cause to order further production after the fact discovery cutoff. Additionally, 

PersonalWeb’s current request is broader than the interrogatory on which it is purportedly based, 

which notably makes no mention of litigation hold notices. As for what was actually requested, 

contrary to PersonalWeb’s assertions, Google did produce its relevant document retention policy. 

PersonalWeb had the policy and even inquired about it during the deposition of Zmrhal, who 

testified that the same retention policy had been in place for at least five or six years. Google also 

opposes PersonalWeb’s request because it is not relevant to any issue in this case, and the litigation 

hold notices are protected by attorney-client privilege, as acknowledged in eBay, the only case 

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 325 Filed 08/19/14 Page 5 of 10
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

For the Northern District of California

PersonalWeb cites. Lastly, Google notes that PersonalWeb’s decision to produce its own litigation 

hold notice in an unsuccessful attempt to defend against allegations of spoliation does not justify 

compelling Google to produce its privileged notice.

In the absence of an explanation for the year-long gap in PersonalWeb’s discovery efforts 

towards Google’s document retention policies, and the coincidence with the Court’s finding that 

PersonalWeb committed spoliation by failing to timely institute its litigation hold, the Court cannot 

help but think that the motivation for its renewed interest is retaliatory in nature, as Google implies.

Regardless, the Court agrees with Google that the litigation hold notice itself is protected as 

attorney-client communications and/or work product, as recognized in PersonalWeb’s lone cited 

case, eBay. There, the court did allow the plaintiffs to inquire into what the employees did in 

response to receiving the litigation hold notice, even if that indirectly revealed the contents of 

notice. However, that case is distinguishable in that it was still very early in discovery, and 

plaintiffs were about to depose eBay’s witness on ESI retention. Moreover, the court based the 

relevance of the discovery on the commentary to amendment to Rule 26(f) which suggests that early

discovery from individuals with special knowledge of a party’s ESI may be helpful in appropriate 

cases. Here, however, after the fact discovery cutoff, the relevance of PersonalWeb’s requests for 

documents related to Google’s retention policies and litigation holds is dubious. PersonalWeb does 

not suggest that the information is relevant to the merits of the case, only that it is responsive to an 

interrogatory served over a year and a half ago. Even if it is arguably within the scope of discovery, 

PersonalWeb had ample opportunity to obtain the information during discovery, and the Court 

thinks the burden of producing the information, however minimal, outweighs its likely benefit. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii)-(iii). Accordingly, PersonalWeb’s request for an order to compel is 

denied.

C. Discovery Dispute Joint Report #4 – New Version of Blobstore

PersonalWeb seeks an order compelling Google to produce source code and documents 

related to the newest version of accused instrumentality Blobstore, which version is not itself an 

accused instrumentality, is still in development, and has not yet gone live. According to 

PersonalWeb, at a deposition in April 2014, a Google witness testified that Google planned to begin 

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 325 Filed 08/19/14 Page 6 of 10
7

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

For the Northern District of California

rolling out the new version “soon, perhaps this quarter,” almost certainly before trial, and he 

confirmed that it would continue to use the accused instrumentality. 

According to Google, the deposition testimony explained that the new version will not go 

live and source code will not be in final release form for another two to three quarters from now, 

after expert reports and summary judgment proceedings. Moreover, courts find that when a product 

is still in development, discovery into such material would be premature because an incomplete, 

non-“live” product cannot be evaluated for infringement in patent litigation. See EOPS Techs. v. 

Pegasus Techs., 842 F. Supp. 2d 31, 34 (D.D.C. 2012). 

The Court agrees with Google that it need not produce discovery related to a version of a 

product which has not been released and is still being developed. Accordingly, PersonalWeb’s 

requested relief is denied.

D. Discovery Dispute Joint Report #5 – Witness on Willfulness

PersonalWeb asserts that Google has failed to produce a witness in response to its 30(b)(6) 

deposition notice on the topic of “Google’s decision to cite to any of the Asserted Patents in any 

other patents originally filed by Google.” After Google objected to the scope of the topic, the 

parties met and conferred, and PersonalWeb agreed to provide Google with a short list of Google 

patents that cite to the patents-in-suit. PersonalWeb provided the list of nine patents, yet Google has 

still failed to produce a witness as it maintains that it cannot locate a person with knowledge of the 

issue.

Since its initial objections to the broad scope of the request and the burden it would impose

have been somewhat alleviated by PersonalWeb’s narrowing, Google now objects on the grounds 

that the request seeks privileged information that is irrelevant to the case. Google asserts that the 

request for information as to the decision why certain prior art was cited directly implicates 

privileged discussions with, and evaluations by, outside prosecuting attorneys, and thus, the request 

is outside the scope of the discovery. The Court agrees that as the request is currently framed, it 

primarily seeks privileged communications, and the Court will not compel Google to produce a 

witness to testify as to this information. Google further asserts that even if PersonalWeb were to 

seek more general, nonprivileged information related to the topic of citations of PersonalWeb 

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 325 Filed 08/19/14 Page 7 of 10
8

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

For the Northern District of California

patents in Google patent applications, it would still be irrelevant to this case because PersonalWeb 

has not tied any of the nine Google patents in its list to any of the existing accused systems. Here, 

however, the Court disagrees as information related to Google’s citation to PersonalWeb’s patents at 

issue is at least reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information. 

Accordingly, Google shall produce a witness knowledgeable of the general topic of citations to 

PersonalWeb patents in the nine Google patents identified by PersonalWeb, with the understanding 

that that person shall not be required to testify regarding privileged communications with attorneys 

about the decision to cite to PersonalWeb patents.

E. Discovery Dispute Joint Report #6 – Prior Art

Google served three interrogatories asking for information relating to the prior art identified 

by Google in its Invalidity Contentions, essentially seeking PersonalWeb’s “validity contentions.” 

Google maintains that it served two sets of “non-infringement contentions” consisting of 72 pages 

of claim charts on a limitation-by-limitation basis in response to similar interrogatories from 

PersonalWeb. However, PersonalWeb has failed to produce reciprocal contentions, instead merely 

referencing a couple deposition transcripts, the licenses to the patents-in-suit, and the inter partes 

review proceedings. 

PersonalWeb’s primary objection is that ordering a supplemental response is premature 

because Google has not yet produced its expert reports. However, at this point, Google has now 

produced its expert reports. Accordingly, PersonalWeb shall now respond to the interrogatories

with its “validity” contentions.

F. Discovery Dispute Joint Report #7 – Claim Chart

Google served an interrogatory asking for a limitation-by-limitation claim chart for 

PersonalWeb’s product StudyPods, which PersonalWeb contends practices the patents-in-suit. 

However, Google maintains that PersonalWeb failed to provide a substantive response to the 

interrogatory and failed to provide sufficient discovery on this issue during depositions as well. It is 

Google’s position that if PersonalWeb wants to rely on its StudyPods product as practicing the 

patents-in-suit, then it must provide contentions in discovery as to how it does so. 

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 325 Filed 08/19/14 Page 8 of 10
9

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

For the Northern District of California

PersonalWeb counters that it need not produce a limitation-by-limitation claim chart for 

StudyPods because it is not using its own product in support of its infringement allegations against 

Google. “Patent Local Rule 3-1 permits a party to asserting infringement to rely on its own 

instrumentality to prove that the accused product practices the claimed invention, so long as that 

party identifies separately for each asserted claim any such instrumentality that incorporates or 

reflects that particular item.” Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Wowza Media Sys., No 11-cv-02243-JST, 2014 WL 

709865, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2014) (emphasis added by PersonalWeb). Thus, because it is not 

relying on StudyPods to prove Google’s infringement, PersonalWeb maintains that it need not 

provide claim charts.

However, the text of Patent L.R. 3-1 is not as limiting as PersonalWeb suggests. Rule 3-1(g) 

provides that a party claiming patent infringement must produce a claim chart if the party wishes “to 

rely, for any purpose, on the assertion that its own . . . instrumentality practices the claimed 

invention.” Moreover, the fact that discovery is not explicitly required by the local rules does not 

mean that a party is excused from responding to a discovery request. Regardless, PersonalWeb 

further argues that, contrary to Google’s representation, it has already provided sufficient discovery 

on this issue during depositions, as evidenced by the three pages of deposition transcripts 

PersonalWeb quotes in its portion of the DDJR, and it produced the StudyPods source code. 

However, the Court is not convinced that this is an adequate substitute, and PersonalWeb shall 

provide a full substantive response to Google’s interrogatory.

CONCLUSION

The parties shall produce the aforementioned discovery within fourteen (14) days from the 

date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2014

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 325 Filed 08/19/14 Page 9 of 10
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

C13-01317 EJD (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Adam Hockensmith ahockensmith@susmangodfrey.com, jdunaven@susmangodfrey.com

Allen Franklin Gardner allengardner@potterminton.com

Ashley Lauren McMillian amcmillian@susmangodfrey.com

Ashley Lauren Denton McMillian amcmillian@susmangodfrey.com

Davida P Brook dbrook@susmangodfrey.com, eball@susmangodfrey.com

Daymon Jeffrey Rambin jrambin@capshawlaw.com

Elizabeth DeRieux ederieux@capshawlaw.com

Joseph S. Grinstein jgrinstein@susmangodfrey.com, tadkins@susmangodfrey.com

Justin Adatto Nelson jnelson@susmangodfrey.com

Kalpana Srinivasan ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com, hdanielson@susmangodfrey.com

Marc M. Seltzer mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com

Matthew M. Wolf matthew.wolf@aporter.com

Max Lalon Tribble , Jr mtribble@susmangodfrey.com, tadkins@susmangodfrey.com

Michael A. Berta michael.berta@aporter.com, alaina.austin@aporter.com, 

sfcalendar@aporter.com

Michael Anthony Berta michael.berta@aporter.com

Michael E Jones mikejones@potterminton.com

Nicholas Lee nicholas.lee@aporter.com

Nicholas H Lee nicholas.lee@aporter.com, elizabeth.tryon@aporter.com, 

gloria.turner@aporter.com, john.fitzpatrick@aporter.com, MaryAnne.Donaldson@aporter.com

Ryan J. Casamiquela ryan.casamiquela@aporter.com, jane.rustice@aporter.com, 

SFCalendar@aporter.com

Sandeep Seth ss@sethlaw.com

Sara Patricia Zogg sara.zogg@aporter.com

Sidney Calvin Capshaw , III ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:13-cv-01317-EJD Document 325 Filed 08/19/14 Page 10 of 10