Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01786/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01786-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISA U.S.A., INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIRST DATA CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-02-1786 JSW (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS

(Docket No. 688)

Visa has filed a motion asking the Court to order First Data to comply with its discovery

obligations. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the

oral argument of counsel, the Court hereby rules as follows.

A. Third Payment Network

In its reply brief and at the hearing on the motion, Visa agreed that this dispute was moot. 

See, e.g., Reply at 1 (“[a]ssuming First Data maintains its representation at next Wednesday’s

hearing, Visa accepts that nothing more can be accomplished on this topic at this time”).

B. Sixth Set of RFPs

First Data has confirmed that the Direct product is synonymous with First Data Net

intraprocessing capabilities and that it has produced “documents sufficient to show its development

costs, and actual and projected sales, revenues and profits, from its lost intraprocessing opportunities

including Direct.” Opp’n at 4-5 n.4 (emphasis in original). Accordingly, this dispute is moot.

First Data also stated that it believes it has produced documents sufficient to show the costs

and revenues for any product or service for which it is claiming damages (including products other

Case 3:02-cv-01786-JSW Document 752 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 3
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

 First Data is not claiming damages for Balance, View, Ledger, or Ease.

2

than Direct, Balance, View, Ledger, and Ease).1 If First Data has not already produced high level

documents relating to finances of products and services other than intraprocessing for which First

Data claims damages (i.e., interchange overcharges and overcharges for processing fees), then it

shall produce such documents within 15 days of this Order. Otherwise, it shall state that all such

documents have already been produced.

C. Fifth Set of RFPs (STAR and Concord Documents)

At the hearing, Visa conceded that the only remaining dispute regarding the Fifth Set of

RFPs was whether First Data should be compelled to produce documents related to the percentage of

United States debit transactions routed through STAR/Concord. Although the parties may dispute

what constitutes the market for “United States debit transactions,” First Data, STAR, and/or

Concord should produce to Visa any documents created since the merger (i.e., post-February 2004)

that discuss the percentage of such transactions routed through STAR/Concord. This information is

relevant to the issue of market share and therefore market power. First Data, STAR, and/or Concord

need not, of course, produce any responsive document that is privileged. Nor need such parties

engage in calculations not already completed and embodied in an existing document.

D. Rogs Nos. 51-52, 55, and 59

At the hearing, Visa stated that responses had been provided to Rogs Nos. 51-52 and 55. 

Visa further stated that it would withdraw its motion to compel regarding Rog No. 59. Accordingly,

these disputes are moot.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:02-cv-01786-JSW Document 752 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 3
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

For the foregoing reasons, Visa’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part (as

moot).

This order disposes of Docket No. 688. It also disposes of Docket No. 490 (regarding the

Fifth and Sixth Set of RFPs), which the Court previously deferred ruling on.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2005

 /s/ 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-01786-JSW Document 752 Filed 05/11/05 Page 3 of 3