Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04472/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04472-9/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 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FORTERRA SYSTEMS, INC., a

California Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

AVATAR FACTORY, a California

Corporation, IMVU, inc., a Delaware

corporation, and WILLIAM D.

HARVEY, an individual

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C-05-04472 PVT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF SOURCE CODE

AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

SHORTEN TIME FOR THE MOTION

TO COMPEL AS MOOT

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 22, 2006, this court issued an Order Granting Forterra’s Motion to Compel

Defendants to produce its entire source code for review by Forterra’s expert, Richard Ferraro. 

(the “Order”.) 1

 The Order also required the parties to “meet an confer to agree upon a

procedure by which Ferraro can seek to change the designation of portions of the source code

from his eyes only to outside counsel only.” ( Order at p.3) The Order also stated: “If the parties

cannot agree upon the portions of the code that should be re-designated, they can bring the

Case 5:05-cv-04472-PVT Document 92 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 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

 2 Forterra claimed to believe that the Order’s statement that if the parties cannot agree they 

“can bring the matter back before the court” was sufficient authority to set a hearing a mere

seven days notice. In order to clarify any remaining confusion, a statement that the matter can

be brought in front of the court does not authorize any time frame any party wishes. Unless

specific authority is granted, the Civil Local Rules govern all papers filed in this, or any other,

case. 

ORDER, page 2

matter back before the court.” (Id.). 

On October 31, 2006, Forterra filed a Motion for Hearing in Compliance with Court’s

Order Granting Forterra’s Motion to Compel Production of IMVU’s Source Code, purporting to

set the hearing for November 7, 2006. On November 1, 2006, the court informed Forterra that

the hearing had not been set in accordance with the Civil Local Rules and that no hearing would

be held on shortened time without a proper request and supporting authority. The same day

Forterra filed a Motion to Shorten Time.2

 Forterra asserts that a hearing on November 7, 2006 is

necessary because the hearing must happen prior to the November 14, 2006 deadline for filing its

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement. Forterra claims

that it needs portions of the source code to be re-designated to allow outside counsel to review

them prior to filing the opposition. 

II. DISCUSSION

IMVU provided the source code to Forterra’s expert, Ferraro on September 8, 2006. 

(Lyon Decl. Exh. 4.) Forterra did not seek additional access to files until October 17, 2006, six

weeks later, when Forterra informed IMVU that expert Ferraro was having difficulty analyzing

the source code and asked IMVU to release a copy of the code to expert Entine. (Lyon Decl.

Exh. 6). On October 18, 2006, the very next day, IMVU agreed to allow Entine to examine the

source code when (Lyon Decl. Exh. 7). On October 25, 2006, Forterra sent IMVU a list of

directories that they wished to allow outside counsel to examine. (Lord Decl. Exh. D.) On

October 30, 2006, IMVU responded that it did not object to the re-designation of nine of the

fourteen directories, but that it did object to five other directories. (Lord Decl. Exh. G.) 

 IMVU opposes the motion to shorten time, arguing that any urgency was created by

Forterra’s delay in seeking additional access to the code and that Forterra’s refusal to accept any

compromise equals a failure to meet and confer in good faith. IMVU first asked Entine to

Case 5:05-cv-04472-PVT Document 92 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 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

ORDER, page 3

identify specific files in the directories that he believed relevant. Forterra refused. (Lyon Decl.

Exh. 2.) IMVU then asked Forterra to have Entine file a declaration stating that he believed all

the files in the disputed directories to be relevant. Forterra refused. (Id.). IMVU then asked

Forterra to have Entine send it an email stating that all the files in the disputed directories were

relevant. Forterra again refused. (Id.). IMVU then offered to simply re-designate all of the files

in the disputed directories. (Id.). Forterra still refused to withdraw its motion to compel unless

“IMVU agrees to allow for the re-designation of future directories/files identified by our

experts.” (Lord Decl. Exh. 3.) Thus, unless IMVU promises to re-designate unspecified

portions of source code, Forterra insists upon proceeding with its motion to compel, even though

IMVU has agreed to re-designate all the files which Forterra is currently seeking. 

The Court is deeply disturbed by Forterra’s actions in relation to this Motion. First, 

Forterra misstates the substance and content of the Order. The motion seeks “to compel IMVU

to comply with the Court’s Order to re-designate the portions of the code identified by Mr.

Entine to be relevant to this action.” (Mot. at 4:2-3). The Order, however, does not require any

re-designation of documents. The Order only required the parties to “meet and confer to agree

upon a procedure by which Ferraro can seek to lower the designation of the source code to allow

it to be viewed by outside counsel.” (Order at 4:5-7.) The parties met and conferred and agreed

upon a process. Thus, there has been no violation of the Order. 

Second, IMVU has agreed to re-designate all the files identified by Entine. No additional

files are at issue in the current motion. Thus, even under Forterra’s portrayal of the Order, there

is nothing to compel. Accordingly, Forterra’s attempt to condition withdrawal of the motion on

a promise from IMVU that any additional files requested at a later date would be re-designated

is, at best, troubling.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 5:05-cv-04472-PVT Document 92 Filed 11/07/06 Page 3 of 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

ORDER, page 4

III. CONCLUSION

In light of IMVU’s agreement to re-designate all of those files, the motion to compel is

now moot. Accordingly,

It Is Hereby Ordered that:

1. The five disputed directories shall be re-designated to allow Outside Counsel to

have access to them;

2. Forterra’s Motion to Compel further compliance with court order is denied as

moot; and

3. Forterra’s Motion to Shorten Time for the Motion to Compel is also denied as

moot;

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2006

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04472-PVT Document 92 Filed 11/07/06 Page 4 of 4