Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04790/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04790-24/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.

BITDEFENDER INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-04790-HSG (TSH)

DISCOVERY ORDER

The Court held two telephonic hearings today concerning the deposition of Finjan’s expert 

Professor Medvidovic. The parties had originally agreed for Bitdefender to depose him on 

October 10, 2019, but Bitdefender had to cancel that deposition the evening before because the 

attorney planning to take it had a family emergency. Bitdefender now wants to reschedule that 

deposition for a date after expert discovery (which closes tomorrow), but Finjan refuses to 

reschedule the deposition unless Bitdefender agrees to reimburse it for the out of pocket expenses 

it incurred for the canceled deposition. During the telephonic hearings, Bitdefender asked the 

Court to order that Medvidovic’s deposition take place tomorrow. Neither side actually wanted

that outcome, though. Medvidovic has travel plans with his family, and tomorrow isn’t all that 

convenient for Bitdefender either. It seems like Bitdefender wants such an order not in spite of the 

difficulty it would impose on the witness to comply, but because of that difficulty, which would 

force Finjan to try to negotiate some other date – the relief Bitdefender really wants. However, on 

the merits, the Court is not willing to order this witness to cancel his travel plans on a few hours’ 

notice for a discovery dispute that was brought to the Court’s attention the day before expert 

discovery closes. Further, the fact that expert discovery closes tomorrow doesn’t mean that the 

undersigned’s only option is to order the deposition to take place tomorrow and that anything else 

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 171 Filed 10/16/19 Page 1 of 2
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

requires Judge Gilliam to modify the case schedule. Judge Gilliam referred “all . . . discovery 

disputes and issues” to a magistrate judge for resolution. ECF No. 42. A common discovery 

dispute is a motion to compel, and under Civil Local Rule 37-3, motions to compel can be brought 

up to seven days after the close of discovery. This local rule necessarily contemplates that if a 

party unreasonably refuses to make a witness available during discovery, a magistrate judge to 

whom discovery has been referred may issue an order after the close of discovery requiring that 

deposition to take place. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer 

concerning the rescheduling of Medvidovic’s deposition. If they cannot reach an agreement, the 

parties shall file a joint discovery letter brief no later than October 24, 2019 concerning this issue. 

See Civil Local Rule 37-3. 

In the meantime, the Court will resolve the reimbursement issue that seems to be the 

primary hang up between the parties. The Court ORDERS the parties to file a joint discovery 

letter brief, not to exceed five pages, by the end of the day tomorrow concerning Finjan’s request 

to be reimbursed for its out of pocket expenses for the canceled deposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 171 Filed 10/16/19 Page 2 of 2