Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01783/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01783-1/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

1 10cv1783 DMS (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HTI IP, LLC; NETWORK FLEET, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WEBTECH WIRELESS INC.; WEBTECH

WIRELESS USA LTD.; XIRGO

TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; PROCON, INC.,

Defendants. 

AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10cv1783 DMS (NLS)

ORDER REGARDING JOINT MOTION

FOR DETERMINATION OF

DISCOVERY DISPUTE NO. 1,

DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST

FOR CLARIFICATION

[Doc. No. 150]

Plaintiffs HTI IP, LLC and Networkfleet, Inc. (Plaintiffs) filed this patent infringement suit in

the Eastern District of Texas against Procon, Inc., Xirgo Technologies, LLC, and WebTech Wireless,

Inc. and WebTech Wireless USA, LTD (WebTech). The four patents asserted relate to a wireless

appliance placed in a car and a host computer that analyzes the data received from that appliance. On

February 5, 2010, the district judge in Texas signed a stipulated protective order negotiated by all

parties. The case was then transferred to this district on August 26, 2010. On October 8, 2010,

Plaintiffs and WebTech filed a joint motion asking this court to interpret paragraph 21(h) of the

protective order. WebTech seeks clarification of paragraph 21(h) while Plaintiff disagrees that any

clarification is needed. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the joint motion to determine the

discovery dispute and denies WebTech’s request for clarification of paragraph 21(h).

Case 3:10-cv-01783-DMS-MDD Document 156 Filed 10/20/10 Page 1 of 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

2 10cv1783 DMS (NLS)

Background.

In response to discovery requests, on May 14, 2010 WebTech made available a limited set of

source code relevant to Plaintiffs’ requests for source code and documents relating to that source code. 

Quinn Decl. ¶ 4. Those files were made available to Plaintiffs’ consultant, Stephen Gray, for him to

review at the Los Angeles office of WebTech’s outside counsel, Fullbright & Jaworski. The files are on

a non-networked Fullbright & Jaworski computer and Gray can make printouts of any files that he

selects.

Gray signed the “Undertaking Concerning Confidentiality,” attesting that he had read the

protective order and agreed to use the confidential information provided to him under the protective

order only for the purposes of the litigation. Quinn Decl. Ex. J. After his first visit to Fullbright &

Jaworski, WebTech did not ask for, and Gray did not provide to WebTech’s counsel, a log or copy of

the files that he printed out. Quinn Decl. ¶ 6.

In response to other discovery requests, WebTech eventually made available for inspection by

Gray the entirety of its source code. Gray visited the office of Fullbright & Jaworski on July 28, 2010

and reviewed the source code. Again, WebTech did not ask for, and Gray did not provide to WebTech’s

counsel, a log or copy of the files that he printed out. Quinn Decl. ¶ 12. 

Plaintiffs requested that Gray again have access to review the source code. WebTech replied

that the inspection could go forward but that Gray would have to provide a log or copies of any printouts

he made. Plaintiffs refused, alleging that the protective order does not require Plaintiffs to provide

WebTech with a log or printouts, and that Gray’s selected printouts are protected as work-product. The

parties agreed that no further printouts would be made, and then sought this court’s intervention to

determine what, if anything, Plaintiffs are required to do under the protective order in terms of providing

a log or printouts of the source code that its consultant has selected for review.

Paragraph 21(h) of the protective order reads:

The Receiving Party shall be permitted to make printouts and photocopies

of Source Code Material, all of which shall be designated and clearly

labeled “CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” and

the Receiving Party shall maintain a log of all such files that are printed

or photocopied.

Quinn Decl. Ex. A, p.7 (emphasis added).

Case 3:10-cv-01783-DMS-MDD Document 156 Filed 10/20/10 Page 2 of 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

3 10cv1783 DMS (NLS)

WebTech argues that the words “maintain a log” mean that “Plaintiffs are required to prepare” a

log. Jt. Mtn., p.4. It asks this court to clarify paragraph 21(h) so that it be read to require Plaintiffs to

produce the source code log at the time of the inspection in order to achieve the purpose of the

protective order to protect the producing party’s confidential and trade secret information. WebTech

argues that Gray’s selection of documents is not protectable as opinion work product because it is only

ordinary work product. It also asserts that Plaintiffs have been careless with WebTech’s highly

confidential source code because in Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions, Plaintiffs describe in detail the

source code but did not designate those contentions as highly confidential.

Plaintiffs argue that the word “maintain” only requires them to maintain their own log of files

that are printed out or photocopied. They argue that the protective order already protects the

confidentiality of the source code and provides a remedy in case of disclosure of that code. Further,

Plaintiffs have agreed to provide WebTech with a copy of their log if they designate Stephen Gray as a

testifying expert, at the conclusion of the litigation, or if WebTech has a reasonable suspicion that

Plaintiffs or their representatives have violated the protective order.

Order.

The court finds that the plain language of paragraph 21(h) only requires Plaintiffs to maintain

their own log of files that are printed out or photocopied from the source code. The parties negotiated

the terms of this detailed protective order, and if they had intended that a log or copies of printouts be

provided to the producing party at the time of the inspection, they would have included the specifics of

that procedure in the protective order. The court, therefore, denies WebTech’s request to clarify and

consequently modify the protective order.

While the protective order appears clear on its face, to avoid any further confusion regarding the

confidentiality of the source code produced, the court amends paragraphs 21(i) and 21(j), and adds 21(l),

so that it is clear that any log produced and maintained is also protected by the protective order. The

changes are noted in bold:

(i) Should such log, printouts or photocopies be transferred back to

electronic media, such media shall be labeled “CONFIDENTIALOUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” and shall continue to be treated

as such;

Case 3:10-cv-01783-DMS-MDD Document 156 Filed 10/20/10 Page 3 of 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

4 10cv1783 DMS (NLS)

(j) If the Receiving Party’s outside counsel, consultants, or experts obtain

the log, printouts or photocopies of Source Code Material, the Receiving

Party shall ensure that such outside counsel, consultants, or experts keep

the log, printouts or photocopies in a secured locked area in the offices of

such outside counsel, consultants, or expert. The Receiving Party may also

temporarily keep the log, printouts or photocopies at: (i) the Court for any

proceedings(s) relating to the Source Code Material, for the dates

associated with the proceeding(s); (ii) the sites where any deposition(s)

relating to the Source Code Material are taken, for the dates associated

with the deposition(s); and (iii) any intermediate location reasonably

necessary to transport the log, printouts or photocopies (e.g., a hotel prior

to a Court proceeding or deposition);

***

(l) The Receiving Party shall produce the log, printouts or photocopies

of Source Code Material to the Producing Party either at the time of

expert witness designation, if that designated witness’s testimony will

involve the Producing Party’s Source Code, or at the conclusion of the

litigation.

Finally, regarding WebTech’s concerns about maintaining the confidentiality of its source code,

the outside reviewing consultant at issue here has already executed an agreement to be bound by the

protective order, and WebTech has remedies through the protective order should it reasonably suspect

that the consultant has violated the terms of the protective order. Regarding the lack of confidential

designation of Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions, paragraph 21(f) provides that documents containing

quoted source code shall be stamped and treated as “CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’

EYES ONLY,” and paragraph 4 of the protective order provides a procedure for WebTech to challenge

the confidential designation (or lack thereof) of the documents produced.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2010

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:10-cv-01783-DMS-MDD Document 156 Filed 10/20/10 Page 4 of 4