Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04426/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04426-2/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

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZSCALER, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-04426-JST (MEJ)

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 125, 126, 127, 128

INTRODUCTION

Symantec Corp. filed this patent infringement action against competitor Zscaler, Inc. See

First Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 139; Joint Case Mgmt. Stmt., Dkt. No. 114. Symantec accuses 

Zscaler’s cloud-based security product of infringing seven Symantec patents. Id. (both). The 

Presiding Judge has referred all discovery disputes in this matter to the undersigned. Dkt. No. 

111.

Pending before the Court are four discovery letter briefs. See Ltr. Br. re: Former Symantec 

Employees, Dkt. No. 125; Ltr. Br. re: Patent Documents, Dkt. No. 126; Ltr. Br. re: Defenses and 

Counterclaims, Dkt. No. 127; Ltr. Br. re: Log-In Credentials, Dkt. No. 128. Having considered the 

parties’ positions, the relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court issues the 

following order.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that a party may obtain discovery “regarding 

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). Factors to consider include “the importance of the 

issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant 

information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 

Case 3:17-cv-04426-JST Document 140 Filed 01/09/18 Page 1 of 4
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

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. 

Discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Id. However, “[t]he parties and 

the court have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and 

consider it in resolving discovery disputes.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee notes (2015 

amendments). Thus, there is “a shared responsibility on all the parties to consider the factors 

bearing on proportionality before propounding discovery requests, issuing responses and 

objections, or raising discovery disputes before the courts.” Salazar v. McDonald’s Corp., 2016 

WL 736213, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016); Goes Int’l, AB v. Dodur Ltd., 2016 WL 427369, at 

*4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016) (citing advisory committee notes for proposition that parties share a 

“collective responsibility” to consider proportionality and requiring that “[b]oth parties . . . tailor 

their efforts to the needs of th[e] case”). 

Rule 26(c) “confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is 

appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 

20, 36 (1984). “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from 

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including by (1) prohibiting 

disclosure or discovery; (2) conditioning disclosure or discovery on specified terms; (3) 

preventing inquiry into certain matters; or (4) limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to 

certain matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 

DISCUSSION

Symantec has not established that the discovery it seeks to compel is proportional to the 

needs of the case, at least at this juncture. The undersigned thus orders the following:

Symantec shall produce within 2 weeks of the date of this Order a list of its employees 

having knowledge of Symantec’s asserted patents or the technology covered by those patents. 

Within 30 days of receiving Symantec’s list, for every person identified on the list, Zscaler shall 

state it has no record of employment or shall respond to Interrogatory No. 8. This resolves Docket

No. 125.

Symantec’s Interrogatory No. 11 is facially overbroad and premature. Symantec has not 

established how information related to “all of [Zscaler’s] issued patents, invention disclosures, or 

Case 3:17-cv-04426-JST Document 140 Filed 01/09/18 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

pending or abandoned patent applications . . . covering or concerning any aspect, feature or 

functionality of each Accursed Product” (Ltr. Br. re: Patent Documents, Ex. 1) is relevant or 

proportional to the claims or anticipated defenses in this action. Symantec’s request to compel 

Zscaler to respond to Interrogatory No. 11 or prohibit Zscaler from later asserting that its product 

is covered by any Zscaler patent or patent application, is denied. This resolves Docket No. 126.

Symantec’s Interrogatory No. 12 asks Zscaler to identify each of its defenses and 

counterclaims in this case. Zscaler argues this interrogatory is premature: Symantec filed a 

(redacted) first amended complaint on December 22, 2017 (Dkt. No. 131), filed the unredacted 

version of the document on January 8, 2018 (Dkt. No. 139), and stipulated that Zscaler’s response 

was not due until January 25, 2018 (Dkt. No. 137). The undersigned agrees Interrogatory No. 12 

is premature. Zscaler shall list its defenses and counterclaims if and when Symantec’s claims 

proceed past the motion to dismiss stage, and/or when Zscaler answers Symantec’s claims. This 

resolves Docket No. 127.

Symantec’s Request for Production No. 70 asks Zscaler to provide log-in credentials for 

Zscaler’s Cloud Security Platform.1 Zscaler already has provided the source code for its Cloud 

Security Platform. Ltr. Br. re: Log-In Credentials at 4. Symantec argues it nonetheless needs to 

access the Platform to obtain “important evidence, such as graphical interfaces, that the source 

code does not and cannot provide, and that may in many instances be better evidence than the 

source code itself.” Id. at 3. Although the undersigned is not persuaded that the burden asserted 

by Zscaler is significant, Symantec has not established the information it would be able to obtain 

with the log-in credentials is relevant or proportional. None of the asserted patents teaches 

graphical-interface claims, and Symantec previously described user interface discussions in 

technical documents as “largely irrelevant.” Id. at 5. Symantec’s request for log-in credentials is 

denied without prejudice. The parties are ordered to meet and confer once more (by telephone, 

videoconference, or in person) regarding RFP No. 70. If the parties cannot resolve this dispute, 

they may file a supplemental joint letter brief addressing the issues raised by this Order. This 

 

1

In the absence of any argument that Symantec was prejudiced by Zscaler’s inadvertent six-day 

delay in responding to the RFP, the undersigned will not find Zscaler has waived its objections. 

Case 3:17-cv-04426-JST Document 140 Filed 01/09/18 Page 3 of 4
4

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

resolves Docket No. 128.

CONCLUSION

This Order resolves Docket Nos. 125-128.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2018

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-04426-JST Document 140 Filed 01/09/18 Page 4 of 4