Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01640/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01640-9/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 Defendant filed its letter brief on July 27, 2005 (docket ##164, 166 and 168). Plaintiff responded

on August 8, 2005 (docket #217). 

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., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ELLIE MAE, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-1640 SI

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS

FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

AND RULE 30(b)(6) WITNESSES 

By letter briefs,1the parties bring before the Court a dispute regarding defendant’s Request for

Production of Documents Nos. 94-114 and for plaintiff to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for Topic Nos.

14-16, 18, 22, 24, and 27. 

Defendant contends that the information sought relates to its unclean hands affirmative defense.

Defendant has presented evidence suggesting that plaintiff may have intended to create an updated version of

software that contained similar appearance and functionality to defendant’s Encompass product. See

Bagdasarian Decl., Exs. C-H. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), parties may obtain discovery “regarding any matter,

not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” The Court finds that defendant has

presented sufficient evidence to warrant plaintiff’s compliance with discovery of material related to unclean

hands.

Plaintiff argues that defendant has not shown that any of the allegedly copied material was protected

Case 3:04-cv-01640-SI Document 253 Filed 09/12/05 Page 1 of 2
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

by trade dress or copyright. However, the Court has recently found that plaintiff’s screen displays are not

protected by trade dress or copyright. Plaintiff continues to seek recovery for additional causes of action.

Therefore, even if defendant cannot obtain protection forits programunder copyright or trade dress, it alsomay

pursue the affirmative defense of unclean hands.

Plaintiff also argues that defendant’s claim ofunclean hands does notrelate to the same screen displays

at issue in the complaint. However, defendant has demonstrated that discovery may lead to evidence in support

of its affirmative defense, which is all that is necessary at this stage of the proceeding. All the screen displays

listed by defendant are found in the Encompass and Point programs, the programs at issue in this litigation.

Third, plaintiff asserts that discovery is not warranted because defendant’s unclean hands allegations

relate to actions taken after the lawsuit was filed. However, the relevant inquiry is whether “the conduct alleged

to bar the action [relates] to the controversy in issue.” Pierce v. Apple Valley, Inc., 597 F.Supp. 1480, 1485

(S.D. Ohio 1984). Here, the conduct alleged by defendant–plaintiff’s copying of Encompass–is directly related

to the controversy in issue.

Therefore, the Court findsthat defendant’s discovery requests are appropriate and ORDERS plaintiff

to comply with Request for Production ofDocuments Nos. 94-114 and produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for

Topic Nos. 14-16, 18, 22, 24, and 27. However, plaintiffonly must comply with defendant’s narrowed request

documented in its July 6, 2005 letter. See July 27, 2005 Letter Brief at 1 n.1.

Plaintiff’s responses must be provided 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 253 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 of 2