Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-04833/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-04833-8/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

 

1 As used herein, “Townshend” refers collectively to Brent Townshend and

Townshend Intellectual Property, LLC.

 

2 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE TOWNSHEND PATENT

LITIGATION,

__________________________________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

__________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 02-4833 JF (PVT)

And Consolidated Cases 

ORDER RE TOWNSHEND’S MOTION TO

COMPEL AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

On October 11, 2005 the parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull

for hearing on Townshend’s1 motion to compel and for a protective order.2 Based on the briefs

and arguments submitted, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Townshend’s motion is GRANTED with regard to the

Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of ESS Technology, Inc. (“ESS”) on the topics of document retention

and document collection for production in this action. The scope of discovery expressly includes

“the existence . . . custody . . . and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things.” 

Case 5:02-cv-04833-JF Document 552 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 3
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 While some discussions between ESS’ counsel and ESS’ employees regarding

document production may be privileged (if intended to be kept confidential), the court knows of

no privilege that would protect information regarding the actions of ESS personnel in reviewing

and collecting documents for the purpose of producing them in this lawsuit.

2

See FED.R.CIV.PRO. 26(b)(1). Thus, discovery regarding a party’s document retention practices

is expressly anticipated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. And as to document collection

efforts, Townshend has shown that certain aspects of the document production by ESS at a

minimum raise questions about the adequacy of ESS’ document search. Further, when

Townshend attempted to question an individual deponent about ESS’ review and collection of

documents for production, ESS improperly instructed the witness not to answer.3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Townshend’s motion is DENIED as moot with regard

to the individual depositions of Fred Chan and Robert Blair, based on this court’s denial of ESS’

motion for protective order with regard to Fred Chan and ESS’ agreement to produce Robert

Blair for deposition. This ruling is without prejudice to a renewed motion for relief from the one

day limit on depositions in the event Townshend believes additional time is necessary and the

parties cannot reach an agreement in that regard.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Townshend’s motion is DENIED with regard to

Document Request No. 66. As written, the request is impermissibly overbroad because it is not

limited to information relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Townshend’s motion is DENIED with regard to ESS’

privilege log based on ESS’ representation that it is currently reviewing its privilege log to ensure

that no communications which were intended to be passed on to third parties are logged thereon. 

No later than October 24, 2005, ESS shall provide a revised privilege log to Townshend, or shall

state in writing that its review did not reveal any non-privileged communications on the log. 

This ruling is without prejudice to a renewed motion in the event ESS does not revise its

privilege log, or if Townshend believes the revised privilege log continues to be inadequate. Any

such renewed motion may be brought on two weeks notice. The opposition to any such renewed

motion shall be filed 5 court days before the hearing. No reply shall be filed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Townshend’s motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks

Case 5:02-cv-04833-JF Document 552 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 3
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

an order requiring ESS to log privileged documents created after the date this litigation was filed. 

Townshend and ESS have informed the court that the parties previously agreed that no

documents created after the filing of the litigation need be logged on a privilege log. The fact

that the court has required Townshend to log a specific category of documents–his notebook

entries–even if created after the litigation filing date does not automatically nullify the parties’

prior agreement as it applies to other documents. And Townshend has not explained what

purpose, if any, would be served by requiring ESS to log post-filing privileged communications.

Dated: 10/13/05

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:02-cv-04833-JF Document 552 Filed 10/13/05 Page 3 of 3