Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01067/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01067-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACING TECHNOLOGIES,LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.

AND GARMIN, USA, INC.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12-CV-1067 BEN (WMc)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN

PART, DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL; AND (2) GRANTING

IN PART, DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER

[ECF Nos. 62, 69 and 81.]

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 4, 2013, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference in the

above-entitled matter. [ECF No. 53.] At the teleconference, the Court heard from

counsel of record regarding the discovery impasse reached by the parties concerning

Plaintiff’s request for the Defendants’ customer contact information in order to

conduct a survey on the purchase and use of Defendants’ products and web services. 

The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for briefing on the issue of whether

Defendants’ customer contact information is discoverable or privileged in this patent

infringement action where claims of direct and induced infringement are at issue. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel production was filed on February 15, 2013. [ECF No.

62.] Defendants’ opposition brief was filed on February 27, 2013 [ECF No. 69] and

Plaintiff’s filed a reply brief on March 8, 2013. [ECF No. 81.] The parties requested

12cv1067 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-01067-BEN-JLB Document 101 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 8
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

an extension of the hearing date in this matter, which was granted. [ECF No. 87.] On

June 27, 2013, the Court held oral argument. Brian Higgins, Esq., appeared for

Plaintiff. Nicholas Groombridge, Esq., appeared for Defendant. The hearing was

placed on the record and the Court issued an oral ruling which is HEREBY

incorporated in this Order its entirety. After hearing from the attorneys of record

and with careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, declarations and exhibits in

support, the Court GRANTS IN PART, DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to

compel and GRANTS IN PART, DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion for

protective order. 

II. ARGUMENTS

A. Plaintiff’s Argument 

1. Background - PaceDJ

PaceDJ is an application for smartphone platforms which allows users to find

music with a tempo that matches the pace of a users’ workout. Plaintiff alleges

Defendants infringed its patent by providing its customers with the Garmin Connect

website where they can enter workout information including cadence type information

and thereafter download workout or cadence data to various Garmin devices for

pacing or other purposes.

2. Motion to Compel

Plaintiff argues it is entitled under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure to discover the user names and email addresses of Defendants’ customers

so that it may collect facts in support of its infringement claims. Specifically, Plaintiff

argues Defendants’ customers know which accused products they purchased and in

what manner they used Defendants’ web-based services (Garmin Connect). 

Consequently, Plaintiff argues such information, which is not tracked by Defendants

and available only through interaction with the customers themselves, is relevant to

Plaintiff’s need to show Defendants’ customers infringed Plaintiff’s patent under 35

§ U.S.C. 271(b). [ECF No. 62.]

2 12cv1067 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-01067-BEN-JLB Document 101 Filed 06/28/13 Page 2 of 8
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

Plaintiff contends its request for contact information is narrowly tailored to

reduce intrusion as it seeks only the names and email addresses of Garmin Connect

users located in the United States. [ECF No. 81.] Furthermore, Plaintiff underscores

the fact that it seeks customer contact information only in order to email one survey,

which will be denoted optional, to customers who use or have purchased Defendants’

accused products. Plaintiff argues these customers know the relevant facts of their

own direct infringement as well as facts bearing on induced infringement that are

available nowhere else.

As an alternative to the method whereby Plaintiff receives the user names and

email addresses and uses its own resources to send the proposed survey to Defendants’

customers, Plaintiff offers to allow Defendants to disseminate its optional survey on

its behalf, thereby eliminating Defendants’ concerns about invasion of privacy and

loss of goodwill. [ECF No. 81.] Plaintiff does not, however, wish to allow Defendants

to view the questions in the email survey before it is sent to customers. 

B. Defendants’ Argument

1. Background: The Garmin Connect Database

Defendants market global positioning technology, including personal

navigation devices. Defendants’ customers have the ability to utilize a web-based

application called Garmin Connect which allows them to enter personal workout

information online and thereafter track their fitness goals using the tools of the

application. In order to register for Garmin Connect, customers are required to

provide their name and email address; however, the customer is left to decide what

workout information they choose to share through the Garmin Connect application. 

[ECF No. 81.] 

///

///

///

2. Motion for Protective Order

3 12cv1067 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-01067-BEN-JLB Document 101 Filed 06/28/13 Page 3 of 8
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

Defendants seek a protective order barring Plaintiff’s access to their customer

contact information and preventing the dissemination of a survey to their customers. 

Defendants contend their customer information is protected under the California state

constitution’s right to privacy. Cal. Const. Art. 1 § 1. Specifically, Defendants argue

Plaintiff’s request for all customer contact information is overbroad because in order

to comply with the request, Garmin would need to reveal the names and email

addresses for all 3.5 million of its customers who use the Garmin Connect database;

Defendants do not categorize the information they collect from customers on a

country-wide basis. Moreover, Defendants argue that from an analysis of the

summary information it does collect, only a small percentage of its customers have

created workouts containing cadence data. Consequently, Defendants argue their

customers’ privacy rights outweigh Plaintiff’s interest in receiving contact information

to conduct a survey regarding product usage. [ECF No. 81.] 

As further support for its motion for protective order, Defendants argue the

names and email addresses of its customers are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s patent

infringement claim because the functionality of the accused product is the focus of

patent infringement. Defendants claim its customers have no further facts to add to

information Plaintiff has already been given in discovery. (Defendants state they do

not keep track of which fitness devices users purchase or which fitness devices

customers use to download workouts with cadence data.) Defendants contend the

privacy of its 3.5 million users should not be compromised when less invasive

measures like using summary activity logs or public information are available to

Plaintiff. [ECF No. 81.] 

Finally, Defendants surmise its customers would feel harassed by, or take

offense to, Plaintiff’s proposed email survey which could cause a loss of goodwill

among its customers or create a chilling effect on business; they urge the Court to

deny Plaintiff’s request on this additional basis. [ECF No. 81.] 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

4 12cv1067 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-01067-BEN-JLB Document 101 Filed 06/28/13 Page 4 of 8
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

Jurisdiction in this patent infringement action is based upon the existence of a

federal question. Accordingly, the federal common law of privilege applies to the

instant discovery dispute. F.R. Evid. 501; United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562,

109 S.Ct. 2619, 105 L.Ed.2d 469 (1989); Garrett v. City and County of San

Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1519, fn. 6 (9th Cir.1987). Defendants assert the consumer

privacy rights afforded by the California state constitution protect their customers’

contact information, however, “[s]tate privilege doctrine, whether derived from

statutes or court decisions, is not binding on federal courts ...” Kelly v. City of San

Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 655 (N.D.Cal.1987). Nevertheless, the Court should take into

account state privileges as a matter of comity where it can do so “at no substantial

costs to federal substantive and procedural policy.” Leon v. County of San Diego, 202

F.R.D. 631, 635 (S.D.Cal.2001). The Court has reviewed the California state and

federal privacy privileges and has not found them to be inconsistent.

 For purposes of the Court’s analysis, it is important to note the California right

to privacy “is not an absolute right, but a right subject to invasion depending upon the

circumstances. Moreover, courts have frequently found that a party's need for the

information may outweigh whatever privacy rights, if any, another party may have.

Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 284 (C.D.Cal.1998) (citations

omitted). 

Federal courts also recognize a right of privacy that can be raised in response

to discovery requests. Johnson ex rel Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497

(10th Cir. 1992) (denying discovery of names of participants in a medical study due

to privacy interests of the individual participants). Similar to California state law,

resolution of a privacy objection under federal law requires a balancing of the need

for the particular information against the privacy right asserted. Cook v. Yellow

Freight System, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 550-551 (E.D. Cal. 1990) (balancing targeted

individual’s right of privacy against public’s need for discovery in employment

discrimination case.) 

5 12cv1067 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-01067-BEN-JLB Document 101 Filed 06/28/13 Page 5 of 8
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

IV. DISCUSSION

Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides any party may

obtain discovery on any matter relevant to a party’s claim or defense. Further,

“relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.R.Civ. P.

26(b). Here, Defendants’ customers have information that is relevant, as well as likely

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with respect to Plaintiff’s direct and

indirect infringement claims because a portion of Defendants’ customers may be

direct infringers of Pacing’s ‘843 patent; they have transferred or downloaded cadence

data from the Garmin Connect website to an accused device. Defendants have stated

they do not keep track of which fitness devices users purchase or which fitness

devices customers use to download workouts with cadence data. Consequently,

Plaintiff’s only available source for relevant information on how the accused products

were used in connection with Garmin Connect is the customer herself. Under both

federal and California law, Plaintiff’s need weighs in favor of conducting a survey

because the facts Defendants’ customers have about device usage are unavailable

elsewhere. 

Plaintiff indicates it is only interested in Defendants’ United-States-based

customers and Defendants have indicated they are able to cull their customer list based

on location and language preferences. Accordingly, in order to reduce needless

contact with customers outside the scope of this litigation, the Court orders

Defendants to identify those users who are located in the continental United States and

have chosen English as their primary language so that they may be surveyed.

Defendants have raised a concern that its customers may feel harassed by

Plaintiff’s proposed survey. There is no factual basis, however, to support this

argument. Defendants have not provided any evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel has or

will conduct themselves unprofessionally during the survey process. In addition, the

Court is not persuaded solely by the argument that customers will be outraged by the

6 12cv1067 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-01067-BEN-JLB Document 101 Filed 06/28/13 Page 6 of 8
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

receipt of one optional email survey. In today’s world, consumers are not surprised

to receive email messages, offers and surveys. Indeed, Defendants send email

correspondence to those of its customers who state they are interested in company

communications. Nevertheless, to strike a balance between Plaintiff’s need and

Defendants’ concerns, and in light of the email contact Defendants have already

established with their customer base, the Court will allow Defendants to disseminate

Plaintiff’s survey via Defendants’ email distribution system. This approach protects

the privacy of Defendants’ customer information and reduces the potential for ill will

at receiving unwanted email while allowing Plaintiff access to the discovery it needs.

Of course, the email survey will be optional and shall be sent only to Defendants’

customers in the continental United States who have identified English as their

preferred language. Of that group, the email will be sent to 50% of the group

randomly selected. Defendants have agreed it will not argue such a group is

statistically insignificant or that such a group is not an appropriate representative

sampling. Thus, the Court ORDERS counsel to meet-and-confer regarding the

content of Plaintiff’s proposed survey. The survey shall consist of no more than 12

questions and must be lodged with the Court for its review and approval in accordance

with the following schedule: 

1. Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with a draft survey no later than July 10, 

 2013;

2. Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with its responses regarding the draft 

 survey no later than July 22, 2013; and 

3. The parties shall lodge the proposed survey questions with the Court at

 efile_mccurine@casd.uscourts.gov on or before July 30, 2013. The Court 

 will hold a telephonic status conference on August 1, 2013 at 1:45 p.m.

///

///

///

7 12cv1067 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-01067-BEN-JLB Document 101 Filed 06/28/13 Page 7 of 8
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

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER THEREON

As detailed above, a survey of Defendants’ customers will lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART as detailed

above. Defendant’s motion for protective order is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART as explained above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 28, 2013

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

8 12cv1067 BEN (WMc)

Case 3:12-cv-01067-BEN-JLB Document 101 Filed 06/28/13 Page 8 of 8