Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 239-3 Filed 11/19/18 Page 1 of 8
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 239-3 Filed 11/19/18 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 239-3 Filed 11/19/18 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Jonathan S. Kagan (SBN 166039)
`jkagan@irell.com
`Joshua Glucoft (SBN 301249)
`jglucoft@irell.com
`Casey Curran (SBN 305210)
`ccurran@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`
`Rebecca Carson (SBN 254105)
`rcarson@irell.com
`Kevin Wang (SBN 318024)
`kwang@irell.com
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, California 92660-6324
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Facsimile: (949) 760-5200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
` Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS,
`INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF
`FINJAN, INC.’S THIRD SET OF
`REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (NOS.
`87-97)
`
`16
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10545052
`
`
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 239-3 Filed 11/19/18 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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 whether the burden or
`
`expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. In particular, the parties have
`
`agreed in their stipulation regarding the discovery of ESI that the following sources of information
`
`are not reasonably accessible: backup media including disaster recovery systems, digital
`
`voicemail, instant messaging, systems no longer in use, and automatically saved versions of
`
`documents. Additionally, Juniper will not search through non-network drives, regardless of
`
`whether those drives are owned by Juniper or personally by its employees and regardless of
`
`whether those drives are internal or external, as such searches are not reasonably accessible and
`
`10
`
`any information contained therein is likely to be cumulative to and/or duplicative of information
`
`11
`
`maintained on active network servers. Additionally, Juniper will not search through hard copy
`
`12
`
`files as such searches are not reasonably accessible and any information contained therein is likely
`
`13
`
`to be cumulative to and/or duplicative of information maintained on active network servers.
`
`14
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
`
`15
`
`burdensome, oppressive, vague and ambiguous, and seeks irrelevant information and information
`
`16
`
`that is not proportional to the needs of the case, including with respect to Finjan’s overly broad
`
`17
`
`definition of “related to.” Juniper will not search for documents that do not directly pertain to the
`
`18
`
`claims and defenses at issue in this matter that are dated from within the statutory damages period.
`
`19
`
`Subject to these specific objections and the General Objections incorporated herein,
`
`20
`
`Juniper responds that it will produce licenses with Kaspersky.
`
`21
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.95 :
`
`22
`
`All Documents identifying the number and location of servers, including but not limited to
`
`23
`
`cloud servers (e.g., Amazon Web Services), utilized by the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`24
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 95:
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Juniper incorporates herein by reference all General Objections set forth above.
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to the definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as
`
`27
`
`including previous or currently-contemplated versions, revision, releases, or continuations of any
`
`28
`
`Juniper products or services other than those specifically identified (including by model number)
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10545052
`
`
`17
`
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 239-3 Filed 11/19/18 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`in Finjan’s Infringement Contentions and also in the operative complaint. Juniper will interpret
`
`this Request as limited to only those instrumentalities specifically identified in both the operative
`
`complaint and Finjan’s Infringement Contentions and also made, used, sold, offered for sale, or
`
`imported into the U.S. within the statutory damages period.
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information or
`
`documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, that evidence or constitute attorney
`
`work product, or that otherwise are not discoverable or are the subject of any other applicable
`
`privilege or immunity, whether based upon statute or recognized at common law.
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request as seeking discovery that is not
`
`10
`
`proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
`
`11
`
`action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
`
`12
`
`resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
`
`13
`
`expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. In particular, the parties have
`
`14
`
`agreed in their stipulation regarding the discovery of ESI that the following sources of information
`
`15
`
`are not reasonably accessible: backup media including disaster recovery systems, digital
`
`16
`
`voicemail, instant messaging, systems no longer in use, and automatically saved versions of
`
`17
`
`documents. Additionally, Juniper will not search through non-network drives, regardless of
`
`18
`
`whether those drives are owned by Juniper or personally by its employees and regardless of
`
`19
`
`whether those drives are internal or external, as such searches are not reasonably accessible and
`
`20
`
`any information contained therein is likely to be cumulative to and/or duplicative of information
`
`21
`
`maintained on active network servers. Additionally, Juniper will not search through hard copy
`
`22
`
`files as such searches are not reasonably accessible and any information contained therein is likely
`
`23
`
`to be cumulative to and/or duplicative of information maintained on active network servers.
`
`24
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
`
`25
`
`burdensome, oppressive, vague and ambiguous, and seeks irrelevant information and information
`
`26
`
`that is not proportional to the needs of the case, including with respect to Finjan’s overly broad
`
`27
`
`definition of “related to.” Juniper will not search for documents that do not directly pertain to the
`
`28
`
`claims and defenses at issue in this matter that are dated from within the statutory damages period.
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10545052
`
`
`18
`
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 239-3 Filed 11/19/18 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, oppressive, and seeks irrelevant information and information that is not proportional
`
`to the needs of the case because Finjan has not accused all servers that may be utilized of
`
`infringement nor indicated in its improperly vague and ambiguous damages contentions how such
`
`information may be relevant to damages. Juniper will limit the scope of its search to
`
`documentation related to servers that host or directly interface with specifically accused features
`
`of the deployed or sold products at issue in this litigation (if any, and subject to, among other
`
`things, the qualification above regarding the scope of the term “Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`Subject to these specific objections and the General Objections incorporated herein,
`
`10
`
`Juniper responds that it will produce invoices from Amazon reflecting data usage of Amazon Web
`
`11
`
`Services by Sky ATP.
`
`12
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 96:
`
`13
`
`All Documents identifying the amount of incoming and outgoing network traffic on
`
`14
`
`servers, including but not limited to cloud servers (e.g., Amazon Web Services), utilized by the
`
`15
`
`Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`16
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 96:
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Juniper incorporates herein by reference all General Objections set forth above.
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to the definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as
`
`19
`
`including previous or currently-contemplated versions, revision, releases, or continuations of any
`
`20
`
`Juniper products or services other than those specifically identified (including by model number)
`
`21
`
`in Finjan’s Infringement Contentions and also in the operative complaint. Juniper will interpret
`
`22
`
`this Request as limited to only those instrumentalities specifically identified in both the operative
`
`23
`
`complaint and Finjan’s Infringement Contentions and also made, used, sold, offered for sale, or
`
`24
`
`imported into the U.S. within the statutory damages period.
`
`25
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information or
`
`26
`
`documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, that evidence or constitute attorney
`
`27
`
`work product, or that otherwise are not discoverable or are the subject of any other applicable
`
`28
`
`privilege or immunity, whether based upon statute or recognized at common law.
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10545052
`
`
`19
`
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 239-3 Filed 11/19/18 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request as seeking discovery that is not
`
`proportional to the needs of the case, considering 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 whether the burden or
`
`expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. In particular, the parties have
`
`agreed in their stipulation regarding the discovery of ESI that the following sources of information
`
`are not reasonably accessible: backup media including disaster recovery systems, digital
`
`voicemail, instant messaging, systems no longer in use, and automatically saved versions of
`
`documents. Additionally, Juniper will not search through non-network drives, regardless of
`
`10
`
`whether those drives are owned by Juniper or personally by its employees and regardless of
`
`11
`
`whether those drives are internal or external, as such searches are not reasonably accessible and
`
`12
`
`any information contained therein is likely to be cumulative to and/or duplicative of information
`
`13
`
`maintained on active network servers. Additionally, Juniper will not search through hard copy
`
`14
`
`files as such searches are not reasonably accessible and any information contained therein is likely
`
`15
`
`to be cumulative to and/or duplicative of information maintained on active network servers.
`
`16
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
`
`17
`
`burdensome, oppressive, vague and ambiguous, and seeks irrelevant information and information
`
`18
`
`that is not proportional to the needs of the case, including with respect to Finjan’s overly broad
`
`19
`
`definition of “related to.” Juniper will not search for documents that do not directly pertain to the
`
`20
`
`claims and defenses at issue in this matter that are dated from within the statutory damages period.
`
`21
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
`
`22
`
`burdensome, oppressive, and seeks irrelevant information and information that is not proportional
`
`23
`
`to the needs of the case because Finjan has not accused all servers that may be utilized of
`
`24
`
`infringement nor indicated in its improperly vague and ambiguous damages contentions how such
`
`25
`
`information may be relevant to damages. Juniper will limit the scope of its search to
`
`26
`
`documentation related to servers that host or directly interface with specifically accused features
`
`27
`
`of the deployed or sold products at issue in this litigation (if any, and subject to, among other
`
`28
`
`things, the qualification above regarding the scope of the term “Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10545052
`
`
`20
`
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 239-3 Filed 11/19/18 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Subject to these specific objections and the General Objections incorporated herein,
`
`Juniper responds that it will produce invoices from Amazon reflecting data usage of Amazon Web
`
`3
`
`Services by Sky ATP.
`
`4
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 97:
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`All Documents, including contracts, agreements, and invoices associated with the
`
`purchase, implementation, and maintenance of servers, including but not limited to cloud servers
`
`(e.g., Amazon Web Services), utilized by the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 97:
`
`Juniper incorporates herein by reference all General Objections set forth above.
`
`10
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to the definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as
`
`11
`
`including previous or currently-contemplated versions, revision, releases, or continuations of any
`
`12
`
`Juniper products or services other than those specifically identified (including by model number)
`
`13
`
`in Finjan’s Infringement Contentions and also in the operative complaint. Juniper will interpret
`
`14
`
`this Request as limited to only those instrumentalities specifically identified in both the operative
`
`15
`
`complaint and Finjan’s Infringement Contentions and also made, used, sold, offered for sale, or
`
`16
`
`imported into the U.S. within the statutory damages period.
`
`17
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information or
`
`18
`
`documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, that evidence or constitute attorney
`
`19
`
`work product, or that otherwise are not discoverable or are the subject of any other applicable
`
`20
`
`privilege or immunity, whether based upon statute or recognized at common law.
`
`21
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request as seeking discovery that is not
`
`22
`
`proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
`
`23
`
`action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
`
`24
`
`resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
`
`25
`
`expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. In particular, the parties have
`
`26
`
`agreed in their stipulation regarding the discovery of ESI that the following sources of information
`
`27
`
`are not reasonably accessible: backup media including disaster recovery systems, digital
`
`28
`
`voicemail, instant messaging, systems no longer in use, and automatically saved versions of
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10545052
`
`
`21
`
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 239-3 Filed 11/19/18 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`documents. Additionally, Juniper will not search through non-network drives, regardless of
`
`whether those drives are owned by Juniper or personally by its employees and regardless of
`
`whether those drives are internal or external, as such searches are not reasonably accessible and
`
`any information contained therein is likely to be cumulative to and/or duplicative of information
`
`maintained on active network servers. Additionally, Juniper will not search through hard copy
`
`files as such searches are not reasonably accessible and any information contained therein is likely
`
`to be cumulative to and/or duplicative of information maintained on active network servers.
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, oppressive, vague and ambiguous, and seeks irrelevant information and information
`
`10
`
`that is not proportional to the needs of the case, including with respect to Finjan’s overly broad
`
`11
`
`definition of “related to.” Juniper will not search for documents that do not directly pertain to the
`
`12
`
`claims and defenses at issue in this matter that are dated from within the statutory damages period.
`
`13
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
`
`14
`
`burdensome, oppressive, and seeks irrelevant information and information that is not proportional
`
`15
`
`to the needs of the case because Finjan has not accused all servers that may be utilized of
`
`16
`
`infringement nor indicated in its improperly vague and ambiguous damages contentions how such
`
`17
`
`information may be relevant to damages. Juniper will limit the scope of its search to
`
`18
`
`documentation related to servers that host or directly interface with specifically accused features
`
`19
`
`of the deployed or sold products at issue in this litigation (if any, and subject to, among other
`
`20
`
`things, the qualification above regarding the scope of the term “Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`21
`
`Subject to these specific objections and the General Objections incorporated herein,
`
`22
`
`Juniper responds that it will produce invoices from Amazon reflecting data usage of Amazon Web
`
`23
`
`Services by Sky ATP.
`
`24
`
`DATED: August 10, 2018
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10545052
`
`
`By: /s/ Joshua Glucoft
`Joshua Glucoft
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`