Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01692/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01692-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNILOC USA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APPLE INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01692-EJD (VKD)

ORDER RE NOVEMBER 3, 2020 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 186

Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) contends that plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc 

Luxembourg S.A., and Uniloc 2017 LLC’s (collectively, “Uniloc”) failed to produce all 

documents responsive to Apple’s Request for Production No. 94 in violation of this Court’s 

October 9, 2020 discovery order (Dkt. No. 169). Dkt. No. 186. Request for Production No. 94

asks Uniloc to produce “Uniloc’s financial statements for each year beginning with the year in 

which Uniloc acquired the Patent-in-Suit through the present, including but not limited to, all audit 

reports including those prepared by Ernst & Young.” Dkt. No. 186-2 at 19. Apple argues that this 

request encompasses (1) Uniloc’s tax returns, and (2) Uniloc’s “tax-related financial statements.” 

Dkt. No. 186 at 1. Uniloc argues that the request does not encompass tax returns and that it has 

already produced its financial statements. Id. at 7. The Court held a hearing on November 10, 

2020. Dkt. No. 191.

For the reasons stated on the record, the Court orders as follows:

1. Request for Production No. 94 does not encompass Uniloc’s tax returns, and 

Uniloc need not produce its tax returns in response to this request.

2. Uniloc must produce all financial statements, regardless of whether they are related 

Case 5:19-cv-01692-EJD Document 192 Filed 11/10/20 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

to its taxes in response to Request for Production No. 94. However, it need not produce 

accountant work papers or other preliminary or preparatory documents that may be used to prepare 

its tax returns in response to this request. 

3. The Court orders counsel for Uniloc to investigate the nature of the documents 

described by counsel for Apple during the hearing and in the paragraph labeled “second” in the 

discovery dispute letter at page 2, and to advise counsel for Apple of the nature of the specific 

documents referred to, by November 24, 2020. If the parties disagree about whether these 

documents are responsive to either Request for Production No. 94 or some other Apple document 

request, they may file a joint discovery letter on this issue only. Each party’s position, including 

citation to applicable authority, and proposed resolution of the dispute must not exceed 750 words. 

The Court denies Apple’s motion to seal (see Dkt. Nos. 181, 184), as well as the parties’ 

other motions and requests to submit additional materials related to this dispute (see Dkt. Nos. 

185, 187).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-01692-EJD Document 192 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 2