DCG Systems, Inc v. Checkpoint Technologies, LLC
Filing
111
ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' JOINT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF E-DISCOVERY ORDER by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 103 Motion for Clarification of E-Discovery Order (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
DCG SYSTEMS, INC.,
12
Plaintiff,
v.
13
14
CHECKPOINT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.,
Defendant.
15
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: C 11-03792 PSG
ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’
JOINT MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION OF E-DISCOVERY
ORDER
(Re: Docket No. 103)
In this patent infringement suit, the court entered an e-discovery order on November 2,
2011 governing the production of email. 1 The parties now dispute whether Plaintiff DCG Systems,
18
Inc. (“DCG”) has complied with certain provisions of the e-discovery order and seek further
19
20
21
clarification of them. On August 7, 2012, the parties appeared for hearing. Having reviewed the
papers and considered the arguments of counsel,
22
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion for clarification is GRANTED.
23
The e-discovery order provides that the parties may propound email production requests for
24
“specific issues, rather than general discovery of a product or business.” 2 The requesting party
25
26
1
See Docket Nos. 32 and 33.
2
See Docket No. 33 at ¶ 7.
27
28
1
Case No.: C 11-3792 PSG
ORDER
1
must limit the requests to ten custodians and a total of twenty search terms per custodian per party. 3
2
The parties dispute: (1) whether DCG’s first set of email requests seeks general discovery of a
3
product or business as opposed to discovery related to specific issues; and (2) whether DCG has
4
properly calculated the number of search terms per custodian.
5
6
DCG contends that its first set of email requests conforms with both requirements. They are
tailored to specific issues, rather than general discovery, and seek email discovery from eight of
7
8
9
Defendant Checkpoint Technologies, LLC’s (“Checkpoint”) custodians with an average of 14.75
search terms per custodian. By way of example, DCG seeks email regarding:
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
•
Checkpoint’s knowledge of DCG’s patents and DCG’s proprietary technologies;
11
•
Whether Checkpoint copied the technologies claimed in the asserted patents, either on its
own or at the direction of one or more Checkpoint customers;
•
Indirect infringement, including Checkpoint’s instructions to its customers relating to the
accused products and functionalities;
•
The nature of the market for the accused Checkpoint products and for other devices that
practice the asserted patents;
•
The value of the inventions claimed in the asserted patents, as a function of the overall
value of the accused Checkpoint products and other devices that practice the asserted
patents;
•
Statements of praise for the claimed inventions, or of skepticism, or demonstrating a longfelt need, or other statements relevant to secondary considerations of non-obviousness; and
•
Evidence of alleged non-infringing alternatives to practicing the claimed inventions.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
As for the second issue, nearly all of DCG’s email search requests are framed as primary search
22
terms coupled with several narrowing search criteria. For example, one proposed search term is:
23
(Intel) AND (SIL OR “solid immersion lens” OR LVI OR “laser voltage imaging” OR
LTM OT “laser timing module” OR “modulation mapping” OR cool OR “conduction
convection” OR c3 OR Thermostream OR ATE OR “automatic test” OR quote OR
quotation OR nozzle OR “thermal management” OR tester OR specification OR
requirement OR prefer OR need OR demand OR request OR emiscope OR ruby meridian
OR waferscan)
24
25
26
27
28
3
See id. at ¶¶ 10-11.
2
Case No.: C 11-3792 PSG
ORDER
1
This constitutes a single search term because it is a conjunctive combination of “Intel” and others,
2
just as the e-discovery order permits. This approach is consistent with the order’s purpose of
3
promoting efficiency and reduce costs. As a final point, Checkpoint has failed to demonstrate any
4
burden whatsoever in conducting the searches because it refuses to report even the number of
5
preliminary search results for each search.
6
Checkpoint responds that DCG’s email search requests do seek general discovery and are
7
not directed to specific issues in the case. While DCG states that its email requests relate to issues
8
of willfulness, copying, inducement, market definition, secondary considerations of non-
9
obviousness and non-infringing alternatives, they ultimately address features of the accused
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
products and general discovery into Checkpoint’s products and business that the order prohibits.
11
Referring to the search terms tendered generally and to the particular Intel example above,
12
immediately following “AND,” the string of narrowing search terms connected by “OR” plainly
13
requires disjunctive and separate searches. Checkpoint has offered a revised set of Boolean
14
searches that could serve as a guide to what Checkpoint is willing to accept relating to search
15
terms. It should not, however, have to give DCG carte blanche to submit thousands of searches
16
regarding issues that DCG deems relevant to in the case.
17
The court agrees with DCG that the issues it identifies above are specific enough. The point
18
of limiting email searches to specific issues is to avoid general trolling for documents unlikely to
19
yield useful information on a particular issue in dispute. Although the issues are admittedly broad,
20
DCG has sufficiently avoided the general product or business requests prohibited under the order.
21
As for the search term dispute, the use of search terms that are both conjunctive and disjunctive
22
illustrates that the Federal Circuit’s Model Protective Order, with its guidance as to simple
23
conjunctive or disjunctive searches, was offered only as the beginning of a much longer
24
conversation in the case law about how to properly scope custodial email search collection and
25
production. Rather than applying mechanical counting rules that perhaps only George Boole might
26
appreciate, the right way to resolve such a dispute is to consider the yield against the purported
27
need. In the absence of any yield data from Checkpoint, however, the court is not in a position to
28
make this consideration, let alone deny discovery that is otherwise appropriate under Rule 26. The
3
Case No.: C 11-3792 PSG
ORDER
1
court must therefore agree with DCG that such terms as it has proposed may be used, and leave the
2
questions of term counting and yield/need balances for another day.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated:
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
8/20/2012
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: C 11-3792 PSG
ORDER
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
