Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04483/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04483-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

POSTX CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SECURE DATA MOTION, INC. 

d/b/a/ SIGABA,

Defendant.

 /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 02-04483 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

This order addresses several discovery disputes that have arisen out of PostX’s recent production of

19 documents to Sigaba. The parties have filed a number of letter briefs and declarations with exhibits

regarding these disputes. [Docket Nos. 840, 863, 876, 879, 884]. Sigaba contends that the 19 documents

should have been produced long ago in response to various discovery requests, including in response to

Sigaba’s and Reid’s first request for production of documents. Sigaba seeks: (1) the deposition of PostX’s

custodian of records to testify as to “when, how, and by whomthese documents were found, how it is possible

that they were not produced previously and the adequacy ofPostX’s and Mayfield’s document production in

light of” the recent production; and (2) an order requiring PostX to pay Sigaba’s fees and costs associated with

all additional discovery (the custodian of records deposition and other depositions that PostX has already

agreed to) caused by the production of these documents. 

Sigaba also contends that PostX improperly designated certain of these documents as “Highly

Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only,” and wants that designation removed so Sigaba’s counsel can show the

documents to their client. Sigaba states that the document at issue (PXT 0220856-61) is three years old and

does not discuss any current or future PostX businessstrategy. Sigaba notes that the email and memo at issue

were authored by a third party distributor at the time that distributor was under contract with Sigaba, and

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 988 Filed 11/08/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Sigaba’s counsel needs to show it to their client so that “specific Sigaba confidential information disclosed to

PostX can be identified and evaluated.” Sigaba further notes that the distributor and PostX never finalized a

relationship, and so to the extent the email and memo discuss PostX strategies, those strategies were never

implemented.

PostX responds that the late production was the result of an oversight by PostX counsel, and

acknowledges that the documents should have produced as early as August 2004. PostX’s counselstates in

their letter brief that PostX turned over the documents at issue to PostX counsel a while ago, that the

documents were inadvertently not produced, and that there was no wrongdoing byPostX or Mayfield. PostX

also notes that some of the documents recently produced are actually duplicates of emails produced in earlier

document productions. Accordingly, PostX contends, there is no need for a custodian of records deposition.

PostX opposes Sigaba’s request that PostX pay for discovery related to the recently-produced documents.

Finally, without any argument in support, PostX asserts that it properly designated the email and memo as

“Highly Confidential– Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”

The Court concludes that Sigaba is entitled to a custodian ofrecords deposition limited to 2 hours and

hereby GRANTS Sigaba’s request. The Court further GRANTS Sigaba’s request that PostX pay for the fees

and costs associated with the depositions taken as a result of the production of these documents. 

Finally, the Court agrees with Sigaba that document PXT 0220856-61 is improperly designated as

“Highly Confidential– Attorneys EyesOnly.” PostX has provided no explanation for this designation other than

its assertion that the designation is correct. As Sigaba persuasively argues, an email/memo that is over three

years old, written by the CEO of a company that was under contract with Sigaba at the time, regarding

potential strategies for PostX if PostX and the company entered into a business relationship that was never

consummated, does not contain the type of confidential business strategy that should be designated as highly

confidential. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Sigaba’s request and orders PostX to re-designate this

document.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2005 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 988 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 2