Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01375/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01375-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338pt Patent Infringement

---

1

17cv1375-DMS-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

 Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE, INC.,

 Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv1375-DMS-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REGARDING APPLE’S FIFTH SET 

OF REQUESTS FOR 

PRODUCTION AND SEVENTH 

SET OF INTERROGATORIES

[ECF No. 568]

BACKGROUND

Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties for determination of 

a discovery dispute filed on January 31, 2019. (ECF No. 568). The Joint 

Motion presents Apple’s motion to compel Qualcomm to respond further to 

Request for Production No. 266 from its Fifth Set of Requests of Production 

and Interrogatory No. 47 from its Seventh Set of Interrogatories. 

// 

Case 3:17-cv-01375-DMS-MDD Document 596 Filed 02/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17cv1375-DMS-MDD

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

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain 

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . ..” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). “Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in 

evidence to be discoverable.” Id. District courts have broad discretion to 

limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more 

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of 

Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response 

must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as 

requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.” Rule

34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party chooses to produce responsive 

information, rather than allow for inspection, the production must be 

completed no later than the time specified in the request or another 

reasonable time specified in the response. Id. An objection must state 

whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that 

objection. Rule 34(b)(2)(C). An objection to part of a request must specify the 

part and permit inspection or production of the rest. Id. The responding 

party is responsible for all items in “the responding party’s possession, 

custody, or control.” Rule 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is 

not required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the 

possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the 

document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the 

document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired of 

Case 3:17-cv-01375-DMS-MDD Document 596 Filed 02/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17cv1375-DMS-MDD

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

under Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must 

answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate objection(s) with 

specificity or, to the extent the interrogatory is not objected to, by 

“answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under oath.” Rule 33(b). The 

responding party has the option in certain circumstances to answer an 

interrogatory by specifying responsive records and making those records 

available to the interrogating party. Rule 33(d).

DISCUSSION

1. Request for Production No. 266

Apple requests that Qualcomm produce documents reflecting the 

negotiation, terms, and payment provisions of any license agreement related 

to the Accused Qualcomm Products. (ECF No. 568 at 2).1 Qualcomm claims 

that there is no dispute as it has agreed to produce responsive documents and 

is working expeditiously to do so. (ECF No. 569-1 at 3). Apple asserts that 

this is not good enough – Qualcomm has refused to provide a date certain to 

complete this discovery. (ECF No. 568-1 at 3). Qualcomm’s excuse for not 

providing a date certain to complete this discovery is because of “possible 

third-party notice and consent obligations.” (ECF No. 569-1 at 3). This is 

just not good enough. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) states that “production must ... be completed 

no later than the time for inspection stated in the request or another 

reasonable time specified in the response.” (emphasis added). The 

burden was on Qualcomm to provide a reasonable time within which it would 

produce responsive records. It did not do so. Consequently, the Court 

 

1 The Court will refer to pagination supplied by CM/ECF rather than original page 

numbering throughout.

Case 3:17-cv-01375-DMS-MDD Document 596 Filed 02/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17cv1375-DMS-MDD

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

ORDERS Qualcomm substantially to complete its production no later than 

14 days from the date of this Order or show cause why it cannot. The parties, 

however, are empowered to agree to different date. 

2. Interrogatory No. 47

In this complex Interrogatory, Apple first asks Qualcomm to identify 

and describe in detail any alternatives to the functionality claimed in the 

Asserted Apple Patents and practiced by the Accused Qualcomm 

Functionalities. This part is easy enough and Qualcomm claims to have 

responded to it both by disclosing the functionality of its relevant products 

and by reference to prior art which it has incorporated into the relevant 

functionalities. Even as to this part, Apple cries foul regarding the extent of 

the detail provided. Qualcomm asserts that Apple’s complaints amount to a 

premature request for expert discovery regarding non-infringement. The 

Court agrees. So, as to the first part of the Interrogatory, the Court finds 

that no further response is required. 

The Interrogatory also asks Qualcomm to identify and describe in detail 

alternatives that Qualcomm asserts are non-infringing that Qualcomm has 

not implemented and the reasons for those decisions. Apple has not 

convinced the Court that information regarding non-infringing alternatives 

not implemented by Qualcomm is relevant to any claim and defense in this 

case. And, whether or not a particular design is infringing or not, is a matter 

for expert testimony. No further response is required. 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-01375-DMS-MDD Document 596 Filed 02/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17cv1375-DMS-MDD

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

CONCLUSION

As presented in this Joint Motion, Apple’s motion to compel further 

responses is GRANTED regarding Request for Production No. 266 (Fifth Set)

and DENIED as to Interrogatory No. 47 (Seventh Set).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2019

Case 3:17-cv-01375-DMS-MDD Document 596 Filed 02/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5