Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04003/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04003-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Trademark

---

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

MISCELLANEOUS ORDER—MDL-1423

JAH

E-filed on 7/14/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE CYGNUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TECHNOLOGY, LLC, PATENT

LITIGATION

______________________________________

THIS ORDER RELATES TO: 

All Actions

No. MDL-1423

This Order Applies to All Actions

 C-02-00142 RMW

 C-02-00145 RMW

 C-02-05437 RMW

 C-03-03594 RMW 

 C-03-03596 RMW

 C-03-03378 RMW

 C-03-04003 RMW

 C-03-05758 RMW

 C-04-01791 RMW

 C-04-03001 RMW

 C-04-03365 RMW

 C-04-04247 RMW

 C-04-04359 RMW

 C-05-01291 RMW

 C-06-03843 RMW

 C-06-04295 RMW

MISCELLANEOUS ORDER

I. DISCOVERY ISSUES

In a June 21, 2006 scheduling order, the court instructed the parties to develop a discovery

depository to facilitate all parties' access to documents in these coordinated actions. The parties

requested a phone conference to resolve three discovery issues: (1) how to divide the cost of setting

up and maintaining the discovery depository, (2) who bears the cost of producing documents in

Cygnus's possession, and (3) who should host the depository site. 

Case 5:03-cv-04003-RMW Document 91 Filed 07/14/06 Page 1 of 7
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

MISCELLANEOUS ORDER—MDL-1423

JAH 2

A. Cost of the discovery depository

Cygnus's position is that Cygnus and each defendant should pay an equal share of the cost. 

The defense position is that Cygnus should pay half the cost and the defendants collectively should

pay half the cost. 

If Cygnus had sued only one defendant, presumably each would bear approximately half the

costs of discovery. The court doubts that adding an additional defendant to this hypothetical

situation would greatly increase the discovery required to be produced by Cygnus. Conversely, it is

unlikely that there would be substantial overlap between each defendant's discovery production, so

an additional defendant would significantly add to the discovery deposited. During the phone

conference, Cygnus reported there were seventeen defendants. While Cygnus appears to have

named more than seventeen entities as defendants in these actions, the court will accept seventeen as

the number of defendants important for discovery purposes. 

Since it appears reasonable to assume Cygnus's discovery production in these actions, except

for its original production, will not be significantly greater than that of an individual defendant, and

there are by Cygnus's estimation eighteen parties important for discovery, the court orders Cygnus to

bear 11 percent of the cost of the discovery depository (approximately 2/18ths or 1/9th) and the

defendants to collectively bear the other 89 percent (approximately 16/18ths or 8/9th). For

simplicity, this ratio will not change as defendants are added or removed from proceedings before

this court. Each participating defendant shall presumptively bear an equal share of the defendants'

portion of the cost, though the defendants are free to make other arrangements among themselves.

B. Cost of producing documents in Cygnus's possession

Cygnus's counsel possesses approximately twenty-five boxes of documents from past cases. 

Defendants want access to all these documents. Cygnus argues that it should bear no part of the cost

of producing these documents except for the few it intends to use. According to Cygnus, the

documents include multiple copies of the patents-in-suit, very similar complaints, and material

produced in discovery by defendants in related cases (including some defendants that remain in

these actions). Liaison counsel for the defendants proposed that defendants initially bear the cost of

scanning these documents, with leave to move at a later date to shift some of the cost to Cygnus. 

Case 5:03-cv-04003-RMW Document 91 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 7
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

 Under Zubulake v. UBS Warberg LLC, cited by Cygnus, "the presumption is that the responding

party must bear the expense of complying with discovery requests," though "requests that run afoul

of the Rule 26(b)(2) proportionality test may subject the requesting party to protective orders under

Rule 26(c), including orders conditioning discovery on the requesting party's payment of the costs of

discovery." 216 F.R.D. 280, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quotation marks omitted).

MISCELLANEOUS ORDER—MDL-1423

JAH 3

This proposal seems reasonable,1 but the court will wait to hear from liaison counsel a firm estimate

of the cost of such production before making a final ruling. Liaison counsel's estimate shall take

into consideration the following paragraph.

The defendants will under no circumstances be reimbursed for the costs of scanning copies

of the patents-in-suit. The defendants will also not be reimbursed for scanning documents related to

lawsuits where there was no discovery or disclosures (voluntary or made under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26), no

settlement negotiations, and no default judgments entered. Materials related to reexaminations of

the patents-in-suit publicly available on the USPTO website also need not be scanned. Defendants

should also be mindful of the limitations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such as

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(i), which states that discovery should not be "unreasonably cumulative or

duplicative, or . . . obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or

less expensive." Discoverable material in Cygnus's possession includes, at a minimum, settlements

not ordered kept confidential by a court, as well as any discovery responses, voluntary disclosures,

required disclosures, and settlement-related papers. Cygnus shall provide liaison counsel with an

itemization of any confidential documents. 

C. Host for depository

Defendant Interactive Media Technologies Inc. d/b/a GlobalTel has volunteered to host the

depository site at a below-market rate. As counsel estimates this will save several thousand dollars,

the court will approve it. GlobalTel's hosting of the site is subject to modification or substitution if

the hosting is not being properly performed.

II. LIAISON COUNSEL ISSUES

Also at the phone conference, several issues relating to the duties of liaison counsel arose.

A. Defendants who have not consented to representation by liaison counsel

The defendants have generally selected Kieran Fallon, counsel for GlobalTel, as liaison

counsel. Fallon reports that defendants TelCan Inc., Mike Choren, and Access Network Services

Case 5:03-cv-04003-RMW Document 91 Filed 07/14/06 Page 3 of 7
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

MISCELLANEOUS ORDER—MDL-1423

JAH 4

have not responded to his communications. Fallon is, of course, excused from representing those

defendants as liaison counsel unless they subsequently consent; he should, however, make

reasonable efforts to coordinate the efforts of the defendants he does represent with any action taken

by defendants he does not. Sanctions may be awarded against any defendant who fails to cooperate

with liaison counsel.

B. Scope of liaison counsel's duties

The parties sought instruction on whether liaison counsel would be responsible for discovery

disputes involving individual defendants. The court envisions liaison counsel's primary

responsibilities to be coordinating discovery and motion practice. If a discovery dispute arises

involving a single defendant, liaison counsel should ensure Cygnus and other defendants are not

aware of similar issues that could be dealt with at the same time. Liaison counsel should also

attempt to ensure that individual discovery disputes are scheduled in a manner that makes sense for

these actions as a whole. Liaison counsel is not responsible for briefing an individual discovery

dispute (unless it involves GlobalTel); such briefing should be done by counsel for the defendant

involved.

C. New actions

The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation continues to transfer in additional cases, most recently

Case No. 06-03843 from the Eastern District of California and Case No. 06-04295 from the District

of Arizona. Cygnus and liaison counsel shall confer with the defendants in these two actions and

determine whether these new defendants can and should follow the June 21, 2006 scheduling order. 

The court would strongly prefer that the new defendants were included in the discovery and motion

practice leading up to the November 20, 2006 hearing. The parties are to report back to the court the

results of these discussions.

III. AT&T'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

AT&T has filed a motion seeking clarification of the June 21, 2006 scheduling order. The

court clarifies the order as follows: Motions for summary judgment of invalidity or infringement

that involve the construction of claim terms, whether the construction is disputed or not, will be

heard on November 20, 2006, or at a later date if the claim construction adopted by the court is not

Case 5:03-cv-04003-RMW Document 91 Filed 07/14/06 Page 4 of 7
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

MISCELLANEOUS ORDER—MDL-1423

JAH 5

legitimately anticipated by a party and the court gives that party leave to file an additional motion

for summary judgment. The twenty-five interrogatories from all defendants jointly shall be

propounded in one set. The ten interrogatories allowed each defendant may be propounded in more

than one set. Assuming these actions are not resolved on the motions heard on November 20, the

court will thereafter allow further discovery.

DATED: 7/14/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-04003-RMW Document 91 Filed 07/14/06 Page 5 of 7
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

MISCELLANEOUS ORDER—MDL-1423

JAH 6

A copy of this order was mailed on to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

John P. Sutton

2421 Pierce Street

San Francisco, CA 94115-1131

Lewis Donald Prutzman 

Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschritt LLP 

900 Third Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Benson L. Hathaway, Jr., Michael F. Krieger,

Todd E. Zenger 

Kirton & McConkie 

1800 Eagle Gate Tower 

60 East South Temple 

Salt Lake City, UT 84111 

David Allen Lowe, Lawrence D. Graham, Mark

Stephen Beaufait 

Black Lowe & Graham 

701 Fifth Avenue 

Suite 4800 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Raymond C. Stewart, Quentin R. Corrie 

Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch LLP 

8110 Gatehouse Road 

Suite 500 East 

Post Office Box 747 

Falls Church, VA 22040 

Robert Charles Kain, Jr. 

Fleit Kain Gibbons Gutman & Bongini 

750 SE 3rd Avenue 

Suite 100 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 

E. J. Asbury, III 

Office of E.J. Asbury III 

3330 Cumberland Boulevard 

Suite 500 

Atlanta, CA 30339 

Counsel for Defendants:

Alan M. Weisberg, Steven M. Greenberg 

Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. 

200 E. Las Olas Avenue 

Suite 2040 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

John C. Carey 

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP 

200 South Biscayne Boulevard 

Suite 3160 

Miami, FL 33131-5323 

Matthew P. Lewis 

White & Case LLP 

633 West Fifth Street 

Suite 1900 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 

Robert J. Bittman 

White & Case LLP 

601 Thirteenth Street, NW 

Suite 600 South 

Washington, DC 20005-3807 

Ellen McGinty King 

White & Case LLP 

Five Palo Alto Square 

10th Floor 

3000 El Camino Real 

Palo Alto, CA 94306 

Felice B. Galant, Gregory B. Wood 

Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. 

865 South Figueroa Street 

Twenty-Ninth Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Joseph P. Zammit 

Fulbright & Jaworski 

666 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10103 

John F. Mardula, Jon L. Roberts 

Roberts Abokhair Mardula, LLC 

11800 Sunrise Valley Drive 

Suite 1000 

Reston, VA 20191-5302 

Richard B. Sheldon 

Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP 

11377 West Olympic Boulevard 

Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683 

Jeffrey L. Silvestrini, Brian F. Roberts 

Cohne Rappaport & Segal 

P.O. Box 11008 

Salt Lake City, UT 84147-0008 

Case 5:03-cv-04003-RMW Document 91 Filed 07/14/06 Page 6 of 7
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

MISCELLANEOUS ORDER—MDL-1423

JAH 7

Raymond J. Etcheverry 

Parsons, Behle & Latimer 

One Utah Center 

201 South Main Street, 

Suite 1800, Post Office Box 45898 

Salt Lake City, UT 84145

Kieran Patrick Fallon 

436 SW 8th Street 

Miami, FL 33130-2814 

Matthew Francis McGahren 

Baum & McGahren 

6171 Crooked Creek Road 

Norcross, GA 30092 

Lori D. Greendorfer, Maxim H. Waldbaum 

Schiff Hardin LLP 

623 Fifth Avenue 

28th Floor 

New York, NY 10022 

Thomas T. Tamlyn 

Yeskoo Hogan & Tamlyn, LLP 

535 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10017 

Peter S. Canelias 

Law Offices of Peter S. Canelias 

420 Lexington Avenue 

Suite 2148 

New York, NY 10170 

David T. Alexander 

MBV Law LLP 

855 Front Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Jon M. Gibbs 

Akerman, Senterfitt 

255 S. Orange Avenue 

Suite 1700 

Post Office Box 0231 

Orlando, FL 32802-0231 

Elizabeth E. Green, R. Scott Shuker 

Gronek & Latham, LLP 

390 N. Orange Avenue 

Suite 600 

Orlando, FL 32801 

Robert D. Becker, Shawn G. Hansen 

Manatt Phelps and Philips 

1001 Page Mill Road Bldg 2 

Palo Alto, CA 94304 

Meredith L. Caliman 

Meredith L. Caliman Law Offices 

3858 Carson Street, Suite 120 

Torrance, CA 90503-6705 

Gregory J. Nelson 

Nelson & Roediger 

3333 E Camelback Road, Suite 212 

Phoenix, AZ 85018 

Peter Neil Greenfeld 

Greenfeld Law Group 

3333 E Camelback Road, Suite 212 

Phoenix, AZ 85018-2324 

Courtesy Copy:

Clerk of the Panel

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Room G-255, North Lobby

Washington, D.C. 20002-8004

Counsel for plaintiff is responsible for ensuring that involved attorneys not on the above service list

receive a copy of this order, if necessary, and shall inform the court of any omissions.

Case 5:03-cv-04003-RMW Document 91 Filed 07/14/06 Page 7 of 7