Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01945/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01945-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

APPDYNAMICS, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01945-VC 

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Re: Dkt. Nos. 53, 67, and 69

The motion to strike the claim for lost profits is denied. However, CA must, by 5 p.m. on 

February 20, 2015, disclose all customers it contends it lost as a result of AppDynamics' allegedly 

unlawful conduct, and all salespeople who were responsible for, or significantly involved with, the 

accounts or potential accounts of those customers. In addition, by the same deadline, CA must 

reach an agreement with AppDynamics about the appropriate search parameters for documents 

relating to the customers that CA contends it lost to AppDynamics as a result of the alleged 

unlawful conduct. It is up to the parties to negotiate these parameters, but CA's proposal that the 

search be limited to documents that contain the word "AppDynamics" is too narrow. The fact 

discovery cutoff relating to this issue is extended to April 10, 2015.

AppDynamics is ordered to provide the hardware and software needed to allow CA's 

expert to perform a comparative analysis of the source code described in the February 13, 2015 

discovery letter. (Dkt. No. 67.) CA must share with AppDynamics the raw data from the 

resulting analysis. The fact discovery cutoff relating to this issue is extended to April 10, 2015. 

The deadline for taking the depositions of Bansal, Sunkara and Kamath is extended to April 10, 

2015 as well.

CA must serve an amended answer to Interrogatory No. 6 which identifies with greater 

Case 3:14-cv-01945-VC Document 77 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 2
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

specificity the trade secrets it believes were stolen by the plaintiffs. If CA later attempts to assert 

theft of a trade secret that cannot reasonably be discerned by the Court from the amended answer 

to Interrogatory No. 6, AppDynamics may move pretrial to prevent CA from asserting theft of that 

trade secret. The amended answer to Interrogatory No. 6 is due by 5 p.m. on February 27, 2015, 

and must be supplemented promptly in response to any new information gained in discovery. 

The parties must exchange privilege logs by no later than April 3, 2015 at 5 p.m. The log 

must include all documents responsive to discovery requests in both this case and the patent 

infringement case, except that the parties may exclude categories of documents that are obviously 

not responsive in this case.

The deadline to complete mediation is extended to April 24, 2015.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2015

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01945-VC Document 77 Filed 02/18/15 Page 2 of 2