Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00408/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00408-4/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

cal 

1 06cv0408

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WEBSIDESTORY, INC.

Plaintiff,

v.

NETRATINGS, INC.

Defendants. 

and related counter-claims.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.06cv408 WQH (AJB)

Order Granting Motion to Compel

[Doc. No. 66]

 WebSideStory moves the Court for an order compelling NetRatings to produce a witness or

witnesses in response to WebSideStory’s January 10, 2007 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice to

describe the operation of NetRatings’ products that perform path analysis, either independently or

though integration with NetRatings’ SiteCensus product. NetRatings has filed a letter brief in Opposition to WebSideStory’s request and WebSideStory filed a reply. Based upon the moving papers and for

the reasons set forth herein, WebSideStory’s motion is hereby GRANTED.

Background

 In the instant case, WebSideStory alleges that NetRatings infringes its patent, U.S. Patent No.

6,393,479 (hereinafter the ‘479 patent), which is directed to methods and systems for path analysis,

Case 3:06-cv-00408-WQH-AJB Document 67 Filed 04/04/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 The following are the deposition topics that remain at issue between the parties:

3. The Operation of NetRatings’ NetView product, and in particular the manner in which

it conducts “path analysis”.

5. The operation of NetRatings’ MegaPanel product, and in particular the manner in

which it conducts “path analysis”.

7. The Operation of NetRatings’ HomeScan Online product, and in particular the manner

in which it conducts “path analysis”.

9. The Operation of NetRatings’ @Plan product, and in particular the manner in which it

conducts “path analysis”.

11. The Operation of NetRatings’ Ad Relevance product, and in particular the manner in

which it conducts “path analysis”.

2 06cv0408

which involves tracking the manner in which users navigate through a website. NetRatings has sued

WebSideStory for patent infringement in a parallel matter in the Southern District of New York. 

The current disputes arises from WebSideStory’s second 30(b)(6) deposition notice of January

10, 2007. On November 2, 2006, WebSideStory took an initial 30(b)(6) deposition of NetRatings’ Chief

Technology Office, John Kleine. NetRatings contends that it initially objected to the entirety of

WebSideStory’s second notice based on the fact that WebSideStory had already taken a first 30(b)(6)

deposition of NetRatings covering these topics. However, NetRatings did subsequently agree to

produce a second witness to testify as to the topics relating to the integration of the SiteCensus products

with other NetRatings products, which are covered by topics 1-2, and 13-16 of the second deposition

notice. After further discussions between the parties, NetRatings further agreed to designate a witness

or witnesses with respect to topics 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12. As such, the only deposition topics which remain

at issue are 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11.1

Discussion

WebSideStory seeks additional deposition testimony from NetRatings regarding the second

deposition notice topics 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11, which relate to NetRatings’ NetView, MegaPanel,

HomeScan, @Plan and Ad Relevance products. Specifically, WebSideStory wants to know how each of

these products conducts path analysis. WebsideStory contends that this information is relevant because

WebSideStory needs to understand how each of these products operates independently in order to

evaluate how each of these products operate when integrated with the NetRatings’ allegedly infringing

SiteCensus product suite.

Case 3:06-cv-00408-WQH-AJB Document 67 Filed 04/04/07 Page 2 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\websidestory\Order.mtc.3.22.wpd 3 06cv0408

NetRatings objects to deposition topics 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 from WebSideStory’s second

deposition notice on two grounds: (1) WebSideStory has already deposed NetRatings first 30(b)(6)

witness with regard to these topics, and (2) WebSideStory is not entitled to testimony regarding these

products that allegedly conduct path analysis because the path analysis functionality alone is not

sufficient to make these products infringing.

1. NetRatings’ Argument that WebSideStory Has Already Taken and Concluded a 30(b)(6)

Deposition of a NetRatings Witness With Regard to these Topics

NetRatings contends that the Court should deny WebSideStory’s motion to compel the

designation of a 30(b)(6) witness with regard to deposition topics 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 from

WebSideStory’s second deposition notice, because WebSideStory has already deposed NetRatings

30(b)(6) witness, Mr. Kleine, concerning these topics. However, WebSideStory argues that the topics

for the initial 30(b)(6) deposition were intentionally tailored to obtain testimony only about the identity

of products that perform “path analysis” not how these products actually accomplish it. Upon review of

the deposition transcript submitted, the Court finds that while WebSideStory did ask Mr. Kleine about

whether certain NetRatings products conducted path analysis, WebSideStory did not delve into the

specifics of how each of the products performed this function. Furthermore, that Court notes that

NetRatings’ witness, Mr. Kleine, specifically identified other NetRatings employees as being most

knowledgeable with regard to the NetView, MegaPanel, HomeScan, @Plan and Ad Relevance products

path analysis functionalities. See Defendant’s Exh. C, Kleine Deposition Transcript at 64-66. As such,

it is clear that WebSideStory has not yet deposed NetRatings’ person(s) most knowledgeable with

regard to the deposition topics at issue in this motion.

2. NetRatings’ Argument that Websidestory Is Not Entitled to Testimony Regarding These

Products That Allegedly Conduct Path Analysis Because the Path Analysis Functionality

Alone Is Not Sufficient to Make These Products Infringing

NetRatings second argument contends that WebSideStory’s motion should be denied because

claim 1 of the asserted ‘479 patent describes “path analysis” as performed through the use of cookies. 

As such, NetRatings argues that the path analysis functionality alone is insufficient to establish

infringement without the use of cookies. Alternatively, WebSideStory argues that NetRatings

willingness to produce a witness regarding the integration of NetRatings NetView, MegaPanel,

Case 3:06-cv-00408-WQH-AJB Document 67 Filed 04/04/07 Page 3 of 5
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

2

 Per a telephone conversation between the parties and the Court’s law clerk on April 3, 2007,

NetRatings’ counsel indicated that they recently agreed to produce the witness WebSideStory requested

regarding the disputed topics, however, whether NetRatings would designate the witness as a 30(b)(6)

witness for these topics was not yet resolved.

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\websidestory\Order.mtc.3.22.wpd 4 06cv0408

HomeScan, @Plan and Ad Relevance products with its SiteCensus products demonstrates relevance and

WebSideStory’s need to understand how each of the products operates independently. The Court

agrees. 

With regard to NetRatings contentions that these products aren’t specifically mentioned in

WebSideStory’s preliminary infringement contentions, the Court notes that WebSideStory’s preliminary

infringement contentions accuse the SiteCensus product suite as well as “all products incorporating such

technologies”. See Defendant’s Opp. at 2. Additionally, NetRatings has indicated that the NetView,

MegaPanel, HomeScan, @Plan and Ad Relevance products integrate the SiteCensus product. In light of

the broad relevancy standard applied to discovery under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules, WebSideStory

would be entitled to information, such as how each of these products that incorporate the SiteCensus

product operate independently, as this information may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As

such, the Court finds that testimony on how each of these products operates independently and in

conjunction with the SiteCensus product to be relevant and discoverable. As a result, Mr. Kleine’s

testimony that the @Plan and Ad Relevance products do not perform path analysis, is insufficient to bar

WebSideStory’s inquiry into how @Plan and Ad Relevance operate independently.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, WebSideStory’s Motion is hereby GRANTED. NetRatings is

ORDERED to produce a 30(b)(6) witness for deposition topics 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 from WebSideStory’s

second deposition notice forthwith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 4, 2007

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-00408-WQH-AJB Document 67 Filed 04/04/07 Page 4 of 5
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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\websidestory\Order.mtc.3.22.wpd 5 06cv0408

Case 3:06-cv-00408-WQH-AJB Document 67 Filed 04/04/07 Page 5 of 5