Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01300/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01300-24/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

CHRIMAR SYSTEMS INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-01300-JSW (MEJ)

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 298, 299, 300

INTRODUCTION

This is a patent infringement case in which Plaintiffs ChriMar Systems, Inc. d/b/a CMS 

Technologies and ChriMar Holdings Company, LLC (collectively “ChriMar”) allege infringement 

of U.S. Patent No. 7,457,250 (the ’250 patent), which covers Power Over Ethernet (“PoE”) 

products. Compl., Dkt. No. 1. Pending before the Court are two discovery dispute letters from 

ChriMar and Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc. and Linksys, LLC f/k/a Cisco Consumer Products 

LLC (collectively “Cisco”). In the first letter, ChriMar and Cisco address a dispute concerning 

Cisco declining to designate a witness for deposition regarding Topic 8 of ChriMar’s Second 

Notice of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) Deposition to Cisco. Dkt. No. 298 (“30(b)(6) 

Ltr.”). In the second letter, they address a dispute concerning a document Cisco is withholding on 

the basis of privilege. Dkt. No. 299 (redacted version), 300 (unredacted version) (“Priv. Ltr.”). 

Having considered the parties’ positions and the relevant legal authority, 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 4:13-cv-01300-JSW Document 311 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 7
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, a court “must 

limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by [the Federal] rules” if “(i) the 

discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other 

source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking 

discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) 

the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(2)(C). 

Additionally, “[t]he 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). “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).

DISCUSSION

A. 30(b)(6) Letter

ChriMar served its Second Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition to Cisco on October 28, 

2015. 30(b)(6) Ltr. at 3. Topic 8 seeks testimony regarding: “Any use by Cisco of any 

combination of one or more [Power Devices] and one or more [Power Sourcing Equipments] 

including any internal or commissioned use in any testing, presentation, instruction, or 

experimentation, as well as the identity of all personnel involved in, or responsible for, such uses, 

the location(s) of such uses, the timeframes corresponding to such uses, and the particular PDs and 

PSEs used in the combination(s).” Id. at 3 n.1. 

Cisco argues ChriMar failed to timely address its objections to Topic 8. Id. at 5. Cisco 

maintains it repeatedly attempted to address ChriMar’s request for the information sought by 

Topic No. 8, offering on multiple occasions to meet and confer about the request, but ChriMar

ignored those offers. Id. Instead, ChriMar re-raised the request after multiple depositions of 

Case 4:13-cv-01300-JSW Document 311 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 7
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

Cisco witnesses occurred in December 2015, and after the December 22, 2015 close of fact 

discovery. Id. During the parties’ meet and confer about the topic on December 29, Cisco offered 

to provide an interrogatory response with responsive information, but ChriMar refused. Id. Cisco 

contends ChriMar’s failure to timely address this issue “provides reasonable grounds for rejecting 

ChriMar’s belated request altogether,” but it “remains willing to provide information responsive to 

an appropriately narrowed version of Topic No. 8 in the form of an interrogatory response, which 

should fully provide ChriMar with anything it could reasonably need.” Id. 

Cisco further argues Topic 8 is not reasonably particular and as phrased would impose 

enormous burden on Cisco without adequate justification. Id. at 6. It notes the topic seeks 

detailed information concerning Cisco’s use of PoE equipment, “anywhere in the world, without 

any temporal limitation, as well as the identity of any individuals involved in or responsible for 

such use.” Id. As Cisco is a worldwide company, with over 70,000 employees (including over 

35,000 employees in the U.S.) and numerous locations around the world, including over 100 

locations in the U.S. alone, Cisco argues that responding to the literal terms of ChriMar’s request 

“would impose enormous, and unnecessary, burden on Cisco, disproportionate to any conceivable 

need in this action.” Id. Accordingly, Cisco maintains ChriMar is not entitled to a deponent on 

such an “expansive fishing expedition” with no legitimate justification for imposing this burden. 

ChriMar argues its requests were timely and that Cisco informed it that preparation to 

testify regarding ChriMar’s noticed topics would not be an issue. Id. at 4. It maintains it followed 

up with requests for witnesses at least seven times, on November 4, 6, 9, 17, and 24, and again on 

December 2 and 9, and at no time prior to the December 29, 2015 meet and confer did Cisco give 

ChriMar reason to believe it required a meet and confer as a condition for providing a witness on 

Topic 8. Id. at 4. ChriMar notes Cisco, on November 25, 2015, informed ChriMar it “d[id] not 

anticipate that preparation of Cisco’s witnesses to testify regarding ChriMar’s noticed topics, 

subject to Cisco’s objections, will be an issue, as we discussed on August 5, 2015.” Id. Thus, 

ChriMar maintains it had no reason to believe Cisco had any concerns with any of ChriMar’s 

deposition topics. Despite this, at the parties’ December 29 meet and confer, Cisco informed 

ChriMar it refused to present a witness on Topic 8 because the parties did not previously meet and 

Case 4:13-cv-01300-JSW Document 311 Filed 01/12/16 Page 3 of 7
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

confer, and ChriMar’s request was therefore untimely. Id. at 3.

Rule 30 requires a corporation to designate a deponent sufficiently knowledgeable to 

testify on the corporation’s behalf “about information known or reasonably available to the 

organization.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). A party noticing a deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) 

must describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which the examination is requested. Id. 

“However, the ‘reasonable particularity’ requirement of Rule 30(b)(6) cannot be used to limit what 

is asked of the designated witness at a deposition.” UniRAM Tech., Inc. v. Monolithic Sys. Tech., 

Inc., 2007 WL 915225, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2007) (citing Detoy v. City & Cty. of S.F., 196 

F.R.D. 362, 366-67 (N.D. Cal. 2000)). “The 30(b)(6) notice establishes the minimum about which 

the witness must be prepared to testify, not the maximum.” Id. (citing Detoy, 196 F.R.D. at 366-

67). Thus, the corporation must “not only produce such number of persons as will satisfy the 

request, but more importantly, prepare them so that they may give complete, knowledge, and 

binding answers on behalf of the corporation.” Guifu Li v. A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc., 2011 

WL 3895118, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011) (citation omitted). “However, if the deponent does 

not know the answer to questions outside the scope of the matters described in the notice, then that 

is the examining party’s problem.” Detoy, 196 F.R.D. at 367 (quoting King v. Pratt & Whitney, a 

Div. of United Techs. Corp., 161 F.R.D. 475, 476 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (internal quotations omitted)). 

Although Cisco appears to contend otherwise, there is no genuine dispute that ChriMar’s 

requests were timely served. Further, although Cisco objected to ChriMar’s requests and offered 

to meet and confer, it did not inform ChriMar it would refuse to provide a witness as to Topic 8. 

In fact, Cisco stated “we do not anticipate that preparation of Cisco’s witnesses to testify regarding 

ChriMar’s noticed topics, subject to Cisco’s objections, will be an issue.” 30(b)(6) Ltr. at 4. The 

interests of justice are not served when a party informs an adversary that a witness will testify on a 

given topic, at least in part, only to then refuse to present a witness at all. Had Cisco informed 

ChriMar it objected to Topic 8 as a whole and would not offer a witness to testify at the time of its 

initial objections, the parties could have likely resolved their differences and not burden the Court 

with last-minute discovery disputes after the discovery cut-off. 

At the same time, it is not clear why ChriMar failed to meet and confer based on Cisco’s 

Case 4:13-cv-01300-JSW Document 311 Filed 01/12/16 Page 4 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

objections until two months after serving its requests and one week after discovery closed. 

ChriMar argues it was incumbent on Cisco to seek a protective order if it believed a deposition on 

Topic 8 was improper. Id. at 4. However, the undersigned does not permit discovery motions and 

instead requires parties to meet and confer in person prior to filing a joint discovery letter. See

Discovery Standing Order ¶ 2. There is no indication ChriMar followed up on Cisco’s meet and 

confer offer. Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 requires parties to first attempt to 

resolve their discovery disputes before burdening the Court with motion practice. See Bernstein v. 

Apollo Grp., Inc., 2014 WL 854834, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2014) (“[T]he Court will not 

entertain a request or a motion to resolve a disclosure or discovery dispute unless, pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37, counsel have previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve all 

disputed issues.”). 

Based on this record, it is not clear that one party is entirely at fault. Nevertheless, at this 

point, discovery has closed and a deposition on Topic 8 would burden Cisco by requiring it to 

make one of its witnesses available for a second day of deposition. Further, Cisco’s argument 

regarding the burden of responding is well-taken, given that Topic 8 seeks information from 

“anywhere in the world, without any temporal limitation, as well as the identity of any individuals 

involved in or responsible for such use.” 30(b)(6) Ltr. at 6. This is especially true in light of the 

recently revised Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which balances the proportional needs 

of the case, “considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action . . . the importance of 

the discovery in resolving the issues, and why the burden or the expense of the proposed discovery 

outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). ChriMar does not address Cisco’s burden 

argument and, as noted above, had ChriMar responded to Cisco’s offer to meet and confer about 

Topic 8 in a timely manner, the parties might have been able to agree to a narrowed version of the 

topic in advance of the depositions of Cisco witnesses that took place in December 2015. 

With this balance of factors in mind, the Court shall permit Cisco to respond to Topic 8 in 

writing, so ChriMar can obtain the information it seeks, but Cisco will not need to submit to a 

second deposition. Further, Cisco’s response to Topic 8 need only describe representative 

examples of Cisco’s use of PoE equipment at selected locations in the United States. ChriMar has 

Case 4:13-cv-01300-JSW Document 311 Filed 01/12/16 Page 5 of 7
6

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

not explained why such a mechanism would not provide it what it needs, and there is no reason it 

will not. The parties shall meet and confer to determine if they can agree on the representative 

examples; if not, they shall comply with the undersigned’s Discovery Standing Order.

B. Privilege Letter

Next, the parties dispute whether Cisco properly withheld from ChriMar a document it

previously identified in a related International Trade Commission (“ITC”) proceeding as “Cisco in 

camera Exhibit No. 1” based on a claim of attorney-client privilege. Priv. Ltr. at 3. Cisco 

maintains Exhibit No. 1 consists of an internal Cisco email exchange between its in-house 

counsel. Id. During the ITC proceeding, Cisco’s counsel informed the Administrative Law Judge

it was withholding as privileged a document Cisco identified as Exhibit No. 1. Id. ChriMar 

contends this document “mentions, discusses or concerns” a matter which Cisco relies on in this 

litigation to support certain of its affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Id. As there was no 

ruling by the Administrative Law Judge as to the admissibility of Exhibit No. 1 prior to 

termination of the ITC proceeding, ChriMar now seeks its production. Id. On January 11, 2016, 

the Court ordered Cisco to submit the document for in camera review. Dkt. No. 304.

Having reviewed Exhibit No. 1 in camera, the Court finds it is a privileged document

consisting of an exchange between three Cisco in-house attorneys that provides legal advice. 

Further, Cisco has not waived any privilege with respect to the document because Cisco has only 

relied on the facts underlying the communication and not on the actual advice from the attorneys 

as the basis for its defense. Finally, ChriMar’s request for a redacted version is impractical given 

that the matters discussed in the document are inextricably intertwined with privileged discussion 

among Cisco’s lawyers. Accordingly, ChriMar’s request to compel production is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1) Cisco shall provide a written interrogatory response to Topic 8 describing 

representative examples of Cisco’s use of PoE equipment at selected locations in 

the United States. The parties shall meet and confer to determine if they can agree 

on the representative examples; if not, they shall comply with the undersigned’s 

Case 4:13-cv-01300-JSW Document 311 Filed 01/12/16 Page 6 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Discovery Standing Order.

2) ChriMar’s request to compel production of Exhibit No. 1, either in redacted or 

unredacted form, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:13-cv-01300-JSW Document 311 Filed 01/12/16 Page 7 of 7