- 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 UNILOC USA, INC., et al., Case No. 19-cv-01692-EJD (VKD) 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE THIRD PARTY 10 v. SUBPOENA TO PENDRELL 11 APPLE INC., Re: Dkt. No. 90 Defendant. 12 13 Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and third party Pendrell Technologies LLC (“Pendrell”) 14 ask the Court to resolve their dispute concerning Apple’s subpoena for deposition transcripts and 15 deposition testimony from Pendrell. Dkt. No. 90. The Court deems this matter suitable for 16 resolution without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 17 For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that Apple may obtain discovery of 18 the transcripts of prior Pendrell depositions involving the same patent portfolio and ownership 19 history at issue in this case, and that Apple may take a single deposition of Pendrell for use in the 20 four Uniloc actions against Apple. 21 I. DISCUSSION 22 A. Deposition Testimony 23 On January 27, 2020, Apple served a subpoena for the production of documents and for 24 deposition testimony on Pendrell. Dkt. No. 90-1. Pendrell (or its subsidiary) is a prior assignee of 25 a patent portfolio that includes the patent asserted by plaintiff Uniloc USA, Inc. (“Uniloc”) against 26 Apple in this action, as well as other patents asserted by Uniloc against Apple in three other 27 actions. Dkt. 90 at 1, 3. The dispute concerns Request No. 4 of the subpoena, which asks Pendrell 1 No. 90-1 a 14. Pendrell does not object to producing the requested documents and also has agreed 2 to produce the requested transcripts, but only so long as Apple’s own deposition of Pendrell is 3 reduced by the amount of time Pendrell’s witness testified in prior depositions.1 Dkt. No. 90 at 5. 4 According to Pendrell, it has provided deposition testimony on two occasions. First, 5 Huawei and Samsung jointly deposed Pendrell in connection with eight Uniloc actions, four each 6 against Huawei and Samsung. Second, Google deposed Pendrell in connection with one Uniloc 7 action against Google. Id. at 3. Pendrell says that transcripts of these depositions reflect 8 approximately 12 hours of deposition testimony. Id. at 5. Apple argues—and Pendrell does not 9 dispute—that these prior Pendrell depositions concern the same ownership history for the patent 10 asserted against Apple in this case and the patents asserted in the other three Uniloc actions against 11 Apple. Id. at 2, 3. 12 Pendrell does not dispute that the discovery Apple seeks is relevant and does not contend 13 that production of the transcripts is burdensome. Rather, Pendrell objects that requiring it to 14 provide a witness to testify for up to seven hours, after Pendrell has already provided Apple with 15 transcripts of prior relevant deposition testimony, is burdensome and not proportional to the needs 16 of the case. Id. at 4. To limit this burden, Apple proposes taking one deposition of Pendrell, not 17 to exceed seven hours, covering all four of the Uniloc actions against Apple. Id. at 1. 18 Pendrell argues that Apple improperly seeks “cloned discovery”—i.e., the results of other 19 parties’ efforts to obtain discovery in other cases. The Court is not persuaded. Apple seeks 20 discovery from the source of the information, Pendrell, not from others who have gone to the 21 trouble and expense to obtain it first. See, e.g., Barrella v. Village of Freeport, No. 12-cv-0348, 22 2012 WL 6103222, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2012) (distinguishing between subpoena directed to 23 source of information and subpoena directed to party in another case who had previously 24 subpoenaed same source). In addition, Pendrell does not complain that Apple’s discovery requests 25 are insufficiently tailored or are so broad as to encompass irrelevant material. See, e.g., Schneider 26 v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 16-cv-02200, 2017 WL 1101799 at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 27 1 2017) (permitting discovery of documents produced in separate cases with factual and legal 2 overlap); Capital Ventures Int’l v. J.P. Morgan Mortg. Acquisition Corp., No. 12-10085, 2014 WL 3 1431124, at *1 (D. Mass. Apr. 14, 2014) (distinguishing between discovery of testimony in 4 || limited number of similar actions and discovery of testimony in wholly unrelated cases). Here, the 5 burden of which Pendrell complains principally results from the number of lawsuits Uniloc has 6 || filed against multiple targets, rather than disproportionate discovery demands by Apple in this 7 case. 8 Apple may take one deposition of Pendrell across all four Uniloc cases against Apple. The 9 total deposition time must not exceed seven hours, even if more than one witness testifies on 10 || behalf of Pendrell. The Court expects that Apple will endeavor to avoid duplicative and repetitive 11 questioning in its deposition of Pendrell. B. Protective Order Issue 5 13 Pendrell alludes to a protective order or orders that may govern disclosure of the 14 || deposition transcripts in the other matters against Huawei, Samsung, and Google. However, 15 Pendrell does not argue that this protective order bars the production of any of the material Apple 16 subpoenas. Pendrell bears the burden of demonstrating that a protective order bars disclosure of 3 17 the transcripts to Apple, and it has not met that burden. The Court expects Pendrell to seek the S 18 consent of any person or entity whose permission for disclosure is required under a protective 19 order in any other case, and to confer promptly with Apple about any necessary steps that must be 20 || taken to obtain such permission. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: March 24, 2020 23 . □ 24 nigga Mu □□□□□□□ VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 5:19-cv-01692
Filed Date: 3/24/2020
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/20/2024