Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAUL J. ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`KRISTOPHER KASTENS (State Bar No. 254797)
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
` & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Non-Party
`DAWN-MARIE BEY
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORK, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`NON-PARTY DAWN-MARIE BEY’S
`RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORK, INC.’S
`SUBPOENA
`
`
`
`
`NON-PARTY DAWN-MARIE BEY’S RESPONSES
`& OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 3 of 32
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, non-party Dawn-Marie Bey, by her attorneys
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, hereby objects and responds to Defendant Juniper Network,
`Inc.’s (“Juniper” or “Defendant”) subpoena to testify at deposition and to produce documents (the
`“Subpoena”), as follows:
`
`GENERAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`The following General Responses and Objections shall be applicable to, and included in, Ms.
`Bey’s responses to each instruction, definition, document request, and request for deposition set forth
`in the Subpoena (each collectively, a “Request” or the “Requests”), whether or not mentioned
`expressly in any particular response. Ms. Bey does not waive any General Responses and Objections
`by stating specific responses and objections to any particular Request. Ms. Bey’s objections and
`responses are based solely on her current knowledge and belief. Ms. Bey reserves the right to modify
`and supplement any of her responses or objections and to assert additional responses and objections as
`she deems necessary and/or appropriate. Ms. Bey asserts the following General Responses and
`Objections to the Subpoena and Requests:
`1.
`Ms. Bey objects to the time provided to respond to the Requests as unreasonable and
`unduly burdensome.
`2.
`Ms. Bey objects to the Requests to the extent the discovery sought is unreasonably
`cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable or already has been obtained by Defendant from some other
`source that is more appropriate, more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. In particular,
`Ms. Bey objects to the Subpoena as unduly burdensome to the extent that Defendant is seeking the
`production of documents and deposition from a non-party that is obtainable from Finjan itself or from
`a public resource.
`3.
`Ms. Bey objects to the Requests on the grounds that the issuing party failed to take
`reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden and expense on Ms. Bey. Specifically, Ms. Bey
`objects on the grounds that the issuing party failed to demonstrate that they have attempted to and
`could not obtain the requested documents from their party-opponent in the lawsuit.
`
`1
`NON-PARTY DAWN-MARIE BEY’S RESPONSES
`& OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA
`
`CASE NO. 5:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`4.
`Ms. Bey objects to the Requests as vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly
`burdensome to the extent they extend beyond the scope of Finjan’s infringement allegations, are
`designed to seek information that is not relevant to the subject of or any claim or issue in the litigation,
`are unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant information, and/or are not proportional to the needs of
`the case. In particular, Ms. Bey objects to the Requests as overly broad and unduly burdensome for a
`non-party individual, particularly as to the number and extent of the Requests.
`5.
`Ms. Bey objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks information that is protected by
`attorney-client privilege, attorney work product immunity, any protective order or other court orders,
`or any other application protection from discovery. Any such information will not be disclosed. To
`the extent Ms. Bey agrees to provide responses to the Subpoena, Ms. Bey does so without waiver of
`any such privilege, immunity or protection. Inadvertent disclosure of any such information or
`documentation is not intended to and shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or any other ground
`for objecting to discovery with respect to such information, or with respect to the subject matter
`thereof. Nor shall such inadvertent production or disclosure waive the right of Ms. Bey to object to the
`use of any such information during this action or in any other subsequent proceedings.
`6.
`Ms. Bey objects to the Subpoena to the extent it calls for information that is subject to
`the privacy and/or confidentiality rights of any third party or third parties that Ms. Bey may not
`disclose without the consent of such third party or third parties. Ms. Bey will not disclose such
`information in responding to the Subpoena.
`7.
`Ms. Bey objects to the Requests to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous, overly
`burdensome, overly broad, confusing, or fail to identify with reasonable particularity the information
`sought.
`8.
`Ms. Bey objects to the Requests to the extent they request documents and things that do
`not exist or are not in Ms. Bey’s possession, custody, or control.
`9.
`Ms. Bey objects to the Requests to the extent they are unconstrained as to time.
`10. Ms. Bey objects to the Requests to the extent they call for a legal and/or expert
`conclusion.
`
`2
`NON-PARTY DAWN-MARIE BEY’S RESPONSES
`& OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA
`
`CASE NO. 5:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`11. Ms. Bey objects to the “DEFINITIONS” and “INSTRUCTIONS” to the extent that they
`impose burdens, obligations and expense on Ms. Bey greater than, inconsistent with or different from
`those authorized under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local
`Rules of the Northern District of California, the protective order or ESI order in the action, stipulations
`between the parties, or any other applicable orders of the Court, and to the extent that they purport to
`give meanings to words different from their ordinary understood English meaning or definitions set
`forth in the applicable statutes or rules.
`12. Ms. Bey objects to the definition of “Document” to the extent it is vague, overly broad
`and unduly burdensome, and purport to place obligations on Ms. Bey greater than allowed for under,
`broader than, or inconsistent with, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this
`Court.
`
`13. Ms. Bey objects to the definition of “Finjan” as overly broad to the extent it includes
`persons or entities not relevant to this litigation.
`14. Ms. Bey objects to the definition of “Concerning” to the extent it is overly broad, vague,
`and ambiguous.
`15. Ms. Bey objects to the definition of “Communication” to the extent it is overly broad,
`unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible, particularly as to the phrase “any
`contact.”
`16. Ms. Bey objects to the definition of “Patent” to the extent it is overbroad, unduly
`burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, to the
`extent it calls for legal conclusions, and to the extent it seeks to impose obligations greater or different
`than those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local
`Rules of the Northern District of California, or any other applicable orders of the Court. Ms. Bey
`further objects to this Definition, and to each Request that incorporates this term, to the extent it is
`vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible, particularly as to the phrase, “any United States, international,
`or foreign classes or types of patents, utility models, design patents, applications (including provisional
`applications), certificates of invention, reissues, divisionals, continuations, continuations-in-part,
`
`3
`NON-PARTY DAWN-MARIE BEY’S RESPONSES
`& OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA
`
`CASE NO. 5:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`extensions, renewals, reexaminations and foreign counterparts thereof” and “includes all stated
`categories of intellectual property regardless of whether those rights are presently expired or were ever
`adjudged invalid.”
`17.
`No incidental or implied admissions are intended by the responses provided herein. The
`fact that Ms. Bey has answered or objected to the Subpoena and the Requests should not be taken as an
`admission that she accepts or admits the existence of any facts set forth or assumed by the Subpoena.
`Any response by Ms. Bey to part or all of the Subpoena is not intended to be, and shall not be
`construed as, a waiver of her right to object to the use of such response, or its proffered admission into
`evidence, at trial or in any motion or other proceedings in or related to the action.
`
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED
`REQUEST NO. 1:
`All retention letters, engagement agreements, and other consulting agreements between You
`and Finjan.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:
`Ms. Bey incorporates by reference her General Responses and Objections as if fully set forth
`herein. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information protected from
`disclosure by attorney-client privilege, or work product immunity. Ms. Bey further objects to this
`Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information not relevant to the
`subject of or any claim or issue in this litigation, and/or is unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant
`information as the Request is broader than the issues of this case and/or is not proportional to the needs
`of the case. Ms. Bey objects to this request to the extent it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or
`irrelevant because it is not properly limited in time. Ms. Bey further objects to this Request as unduly
`burdensome as relevant documents responsive to this Request may be obtained from a party to this
`action and/or have already been produced to Defendant. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent
`it is vague and ambiguous, including the phrase “retention letters, engagement agreements, and other
`
`4
`NON-PARTY DAWN-MARIE BEY’S RESPONSES
`& OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA
`
`CASE NO. 5:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`consulting agreements.” Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not
`in her possession, custody, or control.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Ms. Bey
`responds as follows: To the extent Ms. Bey understands this Request, Ms. Bey will produce relevant
`and non-privileged documents that are responsive to this Request, to the extent they exist, are in her
`possession, and have not already been produced by Finjan.
`REQUEST NO. 2:
`All invoices related to the Patents-in-Suit.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2:
`Ms. Bey incorporates by reference her General Responses and Objections as if fully set forth
`herein. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information protected from
`disclosure by attorney-client privilege, or work product immunity. Ms. Bey further objects to this
`Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information not relevant to the
`subject of or any claim or issue in this litigation, and/or is unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant
`information as the Request is broader than the issues of this case and/or is not proportional to the needs
`of the case. Ms. Bey objects to this request to the extent it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or
`irrelevant because it is not properly limited in time. Ms. Bey further objects to this Request as unduly
`burdensome as relevant documents responsive to this Request may be obtained from a party to this
`action and/or have already been produced to Defendant. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent
`it is vague and ambiguous, including the phrase “invoices related to the Patents-in-Suit.” Ms. Bey
`objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not in her possession, custody, or
`control.
`REQUEST NO. 3:
`All petitions to accept unintentionally delayed claim of priority filed by you or bearing Your
`signature that were submitted to or filed with the USPTO.
`
`5
`NON-PARTY DAWN-MARIE BEY’S RESPONSES
`& OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA
`
`CASE NO. 5:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3:
`Ms. Bey incorporates by reference her General Responses and Objections as if fully set forth
`herein. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information protected from
`disclosure by attorney-client privilege, or work product immunity. Ms. Bey further objects to this
`Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information not relevant to the
`subject of or any claim or issue in this litigation, and/or is unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant
`information as the Request is broader than the issues of this case and/or is not proportional to the needs
`of the case. Ms. Bey objects to this request to the extent it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or
`irrelevant because it is not properly limited in time. Ms. Bey further objects to this Request as unduly
`burdensome as relevant documents responsive to this Request may be obtained from a public resource,
`a party to this action, or have already been produced to Defendant. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to
`the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including the phrase “All petitions.” Ms. Bey objects to this
`Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not in her possession, custody, or control.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Ms. Bey
`responds as follows: To the extent Ms. Bey understands this Request, Ms. Bey has already produced
`and will produce additional relevant and non-privileged documents concerning the file histories of the
`Patents-in-Suit, to the extent they exist, are in her possession, and have not already been produced by
`Finjan.
`REQUEST NO. 4:
`All prior art that You considered during the prosecution of any of the Patents-in-Suit or any
`patents in the same family as the Patents-in-Suit.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4:
`Ms. Bey incorporates by reference her General Responses and Objections as if fully set forth
`herein. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information protected from
`disclosure by attorney-client privilege, or work product immunity. Ms. Bey further objects to this
`Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information not relevant to the
`subject of or any claim or issue in this litigation, and/or is unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant
`
`6
`NON-PARTY DAWN-MARIE BEY’S RESPONSES
`& OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA
`
`CASE NO. 5:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`information as the Request is broader than the issues of this case and/or is not proportional to the needs
`of the case. Ms. Bey objects to this request to the extent it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or
`irrelevant because it is not properly limited in time. Ms. Bey further objects to this Request as unduly
`burdensome as relevant documents responsive to this Request may be obtained from a public resource,
`a party to this action, or have already been produced to Defendant. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to
`the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including the phrase “All prior art,” “considered,” and “any of
`the Patents-in-Suit or any patents in the same family as the Patents-in-Suit.” Ms. Bey objects to this
`Request to the extent that it calls for a legal conclusion. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent it
`seeks documents that are not in her possession, custody, or control.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Ms. Bey
`responds as follows: To the extent Ms. Bey understands this Request, Ms. Bey has already produced
`and will produce additional relevant and non-privileged documents concerning the file histories of the
`Patents-in-Suit, to the extent they exist, are in her possession, and have not already been produced by
`Finjan.
`REQUEST NO. 5:
`All Documents related to the conception of any of the Patents-in-Suit.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5:
`Ms. Bey incorporates by reference her General Responses and Objections as if fully set forth
`herein. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information protected from
`disclosure by attorney-client privilege, or work product immunity. Ms. Bey further objects to this
`Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information not relevant to the
`subject of or any claim or issue in this litigation, and/or is unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant
`information as the Request is broader than the issues of this case and/or is not proportional to the needs
`of the case. Ms. Bey objects to this request to the extent it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or
`irrelevant because it is not properly limited in time. Ms. Bey further objects to this Request as unduly
`burdensome as relevant documents responsive to this Request may be obtained from a party to this
`action and/or have already been produced to Defendant. Ms. Bey objects to the Request to the extent it
`
`7
`NON-PARTY DAWN-MARIE BEY’S RESPONSES
`& OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA
`
`CASE NO. 5:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`seeks documents or communications reflecting confidential business, financial, proprietary, or
`sensitive information or trade secrets of third parties, that are subject to a non-disclosure agreement or
`that may be subject to privacy and/or confidentiality rights of third parties, including documents and
`communications that may not be disclosed without the consent of such third parties. Ms. Bey objects
`to this Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including the phrase “related to the conception
`of any of the Patents-in-Suit.” Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it calls for a legal
`and/or expert conclusion. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not
`in her possession, custody, or control.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Ms. Bey
`responds as follows: To the extent Ms. Bey understands this Request, Ms. Bey has already produced
`and will produce additional relevant and non-privileged documents concerning the file histories of the
`Patents-in-Suit, to the extent they exist, are in her possession, and have not already been produced by
`Finjan.
`REQUEST NO. 6:
`All Documents related to the reduction to practice of any of the Patents-in-Suit.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6:
`Ms. Bey incorporates by reference her General Responses and Objections as if fully set forth
`herein. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information protected from
`disclosure by attorney-client privilege, or work product immunity. Ms. Bey further objects to this
`Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information not relevant to the
`subject of or any claim or issue in this litigation, and/or is unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant
`information as the Request is broader than the issues of this case and/or is not proportional to the needs
`of the case. Ms. Bey objects to this request to the extent it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or
`irrelevant because it is not properly limited in time. Ms. Bey further objects to this Request as unduly
`burdensome as relevant documents responsive to this Request may be obtained from a party to this
`action and/or have already been produced to Defendant. Ms. Bey objects to the Request to the extent it
`seeks documents or communications reflecting confidential business, financial, proprietary, or
`
`8
`NON-PARTY DAWN-MARIE BEY’S RESPONSES
`& OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA
`
`CASE NO. 5:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`sensitive information or trade secrets of third parties, that are subject to a non-disclosure agreement or
`that may be subject to privacy and/or confidentiality rights of third parties, including documents and
`communications that may not be disclosed without the consent of such third parties. Ms. Bey objects
`to this Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including the phrase “related to the reduction
`to practice of any of the Patents-in-Suit.” Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it calls for
`a legal and/or expert conclusion. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that
`are not in her possession, custody, or control.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Ms. Bey
`responds as follows: To the extent Ms. Bey understands this Request, Ms. Bey has already produced
`and will produce additional relevant and non-privileged documents concerning the file histories of the
`Patents-in-Suit, to the extent they exist, are in her possession, and have not already been produced by
`Finjan.
`REQUEST NO. 7:
`All notes that You took related to the Patents-in-Suit.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7:
`Ms. Bey incorporates by reference her General Responses and Objections as if fully set forth
`herein. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information protected from
`disclosure by attorney-client privilege, or work product immunity. Ms. Bey further objects to this
`Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information not relevant to the
`subject of or any claim or issue in this litigation, and/or is unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant
`information as the Request is broader than the issues of this case and/or is not proportional to the needs
`of the case. Ms. Bey objects to this request to the extent it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or
`irrelevant because it is not properly limited in time. Ms. Bey further objects to this Request as unduly
`burdensome as relevant documents responsive to this Request may be obtained from a party to this
`action and/or have already been produced to Defendant. Ms. Bey objects to the Request to the extent it
`seeks documents or communications reflecting confidential business, financial, proprietary, or
`sensitive information or trade secrets of third parties, that are subject to a non-disclosure agreement or
`
`9
`NON-PARTY DAWN-MARIE BEY’S RESPONSES
`& OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA
`
`CASE NO. 5:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`that may be subject to privacy and/or confidentiality rights of third parties, including documents and
`communications that may not be disclosed without the consent of such third parties. Ms. Bey objects
`to this Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including the phrase “All notes that you took
`related to.” Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not in her
`possession, custody, or control.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Ms. Bey
`responds as follows: To the extent Ms. Bey understands this Request, Ms. Bey has already produced
`and will produce additional relevant and non-privileged documents concerning the file histories of the
`Patents-in-Suit, to the extent they exist, are in her possession, and have not already been produced by
`Finjan.
`REQUEST NO. 8:
`All Communications with Shlomo Touboul.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8:
`Ms. Bey incorporates by reference her General Responses and Objections as if fully set forth
`herein. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information protected from
`disclosure by attorney-client privilege, or work product immunity. Ms. Bey further objects to this
`Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information not relevant to the
`subject of or any claim or issue in this litigation, and/or is unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant
`information as the Request is broader than the issues of this case and/or is not proportional to the needs
`of the case. Ms. Bey objects to this request to the extent it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or
`irrelevant because it is not properly limited in time. Ms. Bey further objects to this Request as unduly
`burdensome as relevant documents responsive to this Request may be obtained from a public resource,
`a party to this action, or have already been produced to Defendant. Ms. Bey objects to the Request to
`the extent it seeks documents or communications reflecting confidential business, financial,
`proprietary, or sensitive information or trade secrets of third parties, that are subject to a non-disclosure
`agreement or that may be subject to privacy and/or confidentiality rights of third parties, including
`documents and communications that may not be disclosed without the consent of such third parties.
`
`10
`NON-PARTY DAWN-MARIE BEY’S RESPONSES
`& OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA
`
`CASE NO. 5:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including the phrase “All
`Communications with.” Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it is duplicative of another
`Request. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not in her
`possession, custody, or control.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Ms. Bey
`responds as follows: To the extent Ms. Bey understands this Request, Ms. Bey has already produced
`and will produce additional relevant and non-privileged communications concerning the Patents-in-
`Suit, to the extent they exist, are in her possession, and have not already been produced by Finjan.
`REQUEST NO. 9:
`All Communications with Yigal Edery.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9:
`Ms. Bey incorporates by reference her General Responses and Objections as if fully set forth
`herein. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information protected from
`disclosure by attorney-client privilege, or work product immunity. Ms. Bey further objects to this
`Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information not relevant to the
`subject of or any claim or issue in this litigation, and/or is unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant
`information as the Request is broader than the issues of this case and/or is not proportional to the needs
`of the case. Ms. Bey objects to this request to the extent it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or
`irrelevant because it is not properly limited in time. Ms. Bey further objects to this Request as unduly
`burdensome as relevant documents responsive to this Request may be obtained from a public resource,
`a party to this action, or have already been produced to Defendant. Ms. Bey objects to the Request to
`the extent it seeks documents or communications reflecting confidential business, financial,
`proprietary, or sensitive information or trade secrets of third parties, that are subject to a non-disclosure
`agreement or that may be subject to privacy and/or confidentiality rights of third parties, including
`documents and communications that may not be disclosed without the consent of such third parties.
`Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including the phrase “All
`Communications with.” Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it is duplicative of another
`
`11
`NON-PARTY DAWN-MARIE BEY’S RESPONSES
`& OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA
`
`CASE NO. 5:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 14 of 32
`
`
`
`Request. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not in her
`possession, custody, or control.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Ms. Bey
`responds as follows: To the extent Ms. Bey understands this Request, Ms. Bey has already produced
`and will produce additional relevant and non-privileged communications concerning the Patents-in-
`Suit, to the extent they exist, are in her possession, and have not already been produced by Finjan.
`REQUEST NO. 10:
`All Communications with David Kroll.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10:
`Ms. Bey incorporates by reference her General Responses and Objections as if fully set forth
`herein. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information protected from
`disclosure by attorney-client privilege, or work product immunity. Ms. Bey further objects to this
`Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information not relevant to the
`subject of or any claim or issue in this litigation, and/or is unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant
`information as the Request is broader than the issues of this case and/or is not proportional to the needs
`of the case. Ms. Bey objects to this request to the extent it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or
`irrelevant because it is not properly limited in time. Ms. Bey further objects to this Request as unduly
`burdensome as relevant documents responsive to this Request may be obtained from a public resource,
`a party to this action, or have already been produced to Defendant. Ms. Bey objects to the Request to
`the extent it seeks documents or communications reflecting confidential business, financial,
`proprietary, or sensitive information or trade secrets of third parties, that are subject to a non-disclosure
`agreement or that may be subject to privacy and/or confidentiality rights of third parties, including
`documents and communications that may not be disclosed without the consent of such third parties.
`Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including the phrase “All
`Communications with.” Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent that it is duplicative of another
`Request. Ms. Bey objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not in her
`possession, custody, or control.
`
`12
`NON-PARTY DAWN-MARIE BEY’S RESPONSES
`& OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA
`
`CASE NO. 5:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 484-2 Filed 05/22/19 Page 15 of 32
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Ms. Bey
`responds as follows: To the extent Ms. Bey understands this Request, Ms. Bey has already produced
`and will produce additional relevant and non-privileged communications concerning the Patents-in-
`Suit, to the extent they exist, are in her possession, and have not already been produced by Finjan.
`REQUEST NO.