Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01640/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01640-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Plaintiffsubmitted its brief on June 2, 2005 (docket #97); defendant submitted its opposition on June

17, 2005 (docket ##142-143); and plaintiff filed its reply on June 28, 2005 (docket #150). Defendant also

submitted an objection to plaintiff’s opposition on June 29, 2005 (docket #154).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALYX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ELLIE MAE, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-01640 SI

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL DISCOVERY

By letter briefs,1the parties have brought before the Court a dispute regarding defendant’s compliance

with plaintiff’s discovery requests. The Court will address each of plaintiff’s requests in turn. 

1. Robert Madsen, Sig Anderman, and Jonathan Corr

Plaintiff argues that defendant has not properly searched the paper and electronic files of Madsen,

Anderman, and Corr. Madsen testified on May 25, 2005, that he works from home and that he has not

searched the files ofhis various home computers. Pl.’s Mot., Ex. C. Defendant states it has since conducted

a proper search of the files of Madsen, Anderman, and Corr and has or will produce additional responsive

documents that were found. See Madsen Decl. ¶ 3; Anderman Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4; Corr Decl. ¶¶ 3-5. 

The Court instructsdefendantto search for and produce all documents responsive to plaintiff’srequest.

If defendant has already done so, it should submit a sworn statement to that effect. 

2. Confidentiality designations

Plaintiff contends that defendant agreed to revisit its confidentiality designations after plaintiff withdrew

Case 3:04-cv-01640-SI Document 254 Filed 09/12/05 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

its March 17, 2005 motion to compel. Pl.’s Mot., Ex. B. Defendant argues that plaintiff failed to comply with

the provisions ofthe Protective Order which require that requests for changes in confidentiality designation be

made in writing.

 In a January 2005 letter, plaintiffrequested that defendant revisit confidentiality designations for all emails it produced. Pl.’s Reply, Ex. 3. Plaintiff sent a letter dated May 24, 2005, asking defendant to review

and re-designate numerous documents. Plaintiff then filed this motion on June 2, 2005. The Protective Order

sets forth procedures for the parties to challenge confidentiality designations. To remove or change the

designation of a particular document, the party must first place a request in writing to the other party. When

a party refuses to remove or change a challenged designation and the dispute cannot be resolved between the

two parties, the party challenging the designation may request the court for an order to remove or change the

designation. 

The Court instructs defendant to review the confidentiality designations of e-mails and documents as

requested in plaintiff’sJanuary 2005 and May 2005 letters. After review of the designations, the parties should

meet and confer to resolve any disputes. If unresolved disputes remain after the parties have met and

conferred, the challenging party may submit a motion to the Court to remove or change a designation.

3. E-mail attachments

After plaintiff’s initial request for e-mail documents, plaintiff argues that defendant produced numerous

e-mails but none of the attachments. After an exchange of letters, see Pl.’s Reply, Ex. 3-5, plaintiff contends

that defendant produced a small box ofdocuments with no explanation ofhow the documents matched up with

the original e-mails produced. Defendant states that plaintiff’s request for the e-mail attachments pre-dates

defendant’s change of counsel, and that previous counsel has already reviewed defendant’s e-mails and

produced the missing attachments referenced in those e-mails. Ramsey Decl. ¶¶ 3-5. Subsequently,

defendant’s new counsel searched for and produced new copies of e-mails and attachments that plaintiff

identified. Lambert Decl., Ex. I. 

The Court instructs defendant to provide the attachments for e-mails produced and identify which

attachments belong to each e-mail. If defendant has already done so, it should submit a sworn statement to

Case 3:04-cv-01640-SI Document 254 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

that effect. 

4. Board of Directors documents

Plaintiff argues that defendant has only produce two sets of Board meeting minutes relating to

Encompass or the present litigation, and is suspicious there are more documents. Defendant contends that it

has searched the Board meeting minutes, found, and produced entries referencing Encompass or the present

lawsuit. Hu Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.

The Court instructs defendant to searched the Board meeting minutes and produce all documents

relating to Encompass or the present litigation. If defendant has already done so, it should submit a sworn

statement to that effect. 

5. Legal opinions and related documents

Defendant initially produced an opinion from Peter Harvey, of Harvey, Siskind & Jacobs LLP, on

March 11, 2003, concerning the introduction of the Encompass. On May 2, 2005, plaintiff served Harvey,

Siskind & Jacobs LLP a document subpoena, and it promptly produced a second legalopinion dated June 30,

2003. Pl.’s Mot., Ex. G. Plaintiff argues that defendant has not produced any documents from defendant’s

files relating to the legal opinions. Defendant states that Harvey’s entire file has been produced to plaintiff in

response to the subpoena. Defendant’s letter dated April 15, 2005, states that it is addressing the issue of

documents relating to Harvey’s opinion letter. Lamb. Decl., Ex. A. 

The Court instructs defendant to search for and produce files relating to legal opinions concerning

Encompass. If defendant has already done so, it should submit a sworn statement to that effect. 

6. Madsen’s compensation

Plaintiff contends that Madsen’s compensation is relevant to the claimed falsity of defendant’s

advertisement asserting thatMadsen joined defendant because ofEncompass. Defendant argues that Madsen’s

testimony has already provided informationon the structure and components ofhis compensation package and

he has produced supporting documents. Defendant contends that Madsen’s salary is “based largely on sales

Case 3:04-cv-01640-SI Document 254 Filed 09/12/05 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

commissions”and therefore,is consistent with him joining defendant due to his beliefin the Encompass product.

Def.’s Opp’n at 4. 

The California Supreme Court has clearly held that the right of privacy extends to one’s financial

records. ValleyBank of Nev. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. 3d 652, 656 (1975); Moskowitz v. SuperiorCourt,

137 Cal. App. 3d 313, 315 (1982). However, the right of privacy must be balanced against the interests of

the public for discovery in litigation. Moskowitz, 137 Cal. App. 3d at 316. “In addressing the plaintiff’s

interest in obtaining such information, the court begins by noting that relevancy requirements with respect to

discovery matters are to be broadly construed.” Cook v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 552

(E.D. Cal. 1990); see N.L.R.B. v. Local Union 497, 795 F.2d 836, 838 (9th Cir. 1986). 

When asked to reveal his income at the deposition, Madsen himself testified that his compensation

“does have relevance to the case, but [he doesn’t] want to [reveal it].” Lambert Decl., Ex. K. Furthermore,

defendant’s vague assertion that Madsen’s salary is based largely on sales commission is insufficient. This

Court finds that Madsen’s compensation is relevant to plaintiff’s claim about defendant’s advertisement.

This Court ORDERS defendant to comply with plaintiff’s request to produce documents sufficient to

show Madsen’s compensation since his employment. Defendant is reminded this information may be produced

under the Protective Order.

7. Witness coaching

Plaintiff claims thatreview ofthe Madsen DepositionTranscriptreveals inconsistenciesinthe testimony

and alleges thatMadsen was coached by defendant’s counselto change his testimony. See Madsen Dep. Tr.

at 89-90, 190. Defendant argues that plaintiff never made any objections to the actions of its counsel at the

depositions.

The Court does not find reason at this time to instruct defendant on coaching its witness. Plaintiff’s

motion is DENIED.

8. Interrogatories

Plaintiff served defendant with a set of interrogatories on May 16, 2005. In its response, defendant

asserted that the number of interrogatories exceeded the twenty-five allowed by Federal Rule of Civil

Case 3:04-cv-01640-SI Document 254 Filed 09/12/05 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2 Specifically, defendant objected to plaintiff’sInterrogatory Nos. 7-11 and 16-18 as compound. Pl.’s

Mot., Ex. I.

3 The four claims in the Second Amended Complaint are: (1) federal unfair competition, (2) false

advertisement, (3) copyright infringement, and (4) California unfair competition.

4

 For example: Interrogatory No. 7: “Describe in detail the factualbasis upon whichEllie Mae alleges

as to each Claim in Calyx’s [complaint] that Calyx’s request for relief is precluded, in whole or in part, under

the doctrine of unclean hands.” Interrogatory No. 8: “Describe in detail the factualbasis upon which Ellie Mae

alleges as to each Claim in Calyx’s [complaint] that Caylx is barred from asserting the claims by the doctrine

of laches due to Calyx’s failure to diligently and timely pursue its claims, if any, it had against Ellie Mae.”

Interrogatory No. 9: “Describe in detail the factual basis upon which Ellie Mae alleges as to each Claim in

Calyx’s [complaint] that Calyx, by its acts and omissions . . . has waived its right to complain of Ellie Mae’s

alleged conduct and/or assert any of the claims set forth in the Amended Complaint.” 

5

Procedure 33(a) because several of the interrogatories are compound and based on separate and distinct

factualallegations.2 If counted separately, there are thirty-seven total interrogatories. Plaintiff argues that the

interrogatories are not compound and simply track defendant’s affirmative defenses.

Rule 33(a) provides in part: “Without leave of court or written stipulation, any party may serve upon

any other party written interrogatorie s, not exceeding 25 in number including all discrete subparts. . .” In

Safeco ofAmerica v.Rawstron, the court held that a subpart should be counted as the same interrogatory when

it is “logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.” 181 F.R.D. 441,

445 (C.D. Cal. 1998). 

In this case, several of the interrogatories ask defendant to “describe in detail the factual basis” upon

which defendant alleges a particular affirmative defense for each of plaintiff’s claims in its Second Amended

Complaint.3 Pl.’s Mot., Ex. I.4 Looking at the complaint, each claim does list a set of facts to which it

pertains. However, each claim also relies on several of the same facts laid out in the complaint. Moreover,

the interrogatories do track defendant’s affirmative defenses. After reviewing ofthe interrogatories, the Court

finds that 7-11 and 16-18 are not compound and that plaintiff has not exceeded the Rule 33(a) limit. 

The Court instructs defendant to serve to respond to the remaining interrogatories it has not answered

in plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories.

Case 3:04-cv-01640-SI Document 254 Filed 09/12/05 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

9. Fees, expenses, and sanctions.

The Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for fees, expenses and sanctions.

10. Summary.

The Court instructs defendant to comply with this order on or before September 26, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2005 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01640-SI Document 254 Filed 09/12/05 Page 6 of 6