Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-4 Filed 06/14/19 Page 1 of 8
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-4 Filed 06/14/19 Page 1of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-4 Filed 06/14/19 Page 2 of 8
`
`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
`Sharon Song (SBN 313535)
`ssong@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
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS,
`Plaintiff,
`INC.’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF FINJAN,
`INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
`PRODUCTION
`
`vs.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`)))))))))))
`
`Defendant.
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10527218
`
`JUNIPER’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE
`TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-4 Filed 06/14/19 Page 3 of 8
`
`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
`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 objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
`burdensome, oppressive, vague and ambiguous, and seeks irrelevant information, including with
`respect to Finjan’s overly broad definition of “relating to.” Juniper will not search for documents
`that do not directly pertain to the claims and defenses at issue in this matter that are dated from
`within the statutory damages period.
`Subject to these specific objections and the General Objections incorporated herein,
`Juniper further responds that it will produce relevant, responsive, and non-privileged documents
`sufficient to show competitive analyses or customer surveys, if any, specifically related to ATP
`Appliance within the statutory damages period, to the extent that such documents currently exist in
`Juniper’s possession, custody, or control and can be located after a reasonably diligent search
`without undue burden to Juniper as described above.
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
`Documents, communications, or things sufficient to show any products or services sold,
`offered for sale, marketed, or bundled with each of the Accused Instrumentalities from the year
`2012 to the present.
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10527218
`
`- 105 -
`
`JUNIPER’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE
`TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-4 Filed 06/14/19 Page 4 of 8
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
`Juniper incorporates herein by reference all General Objections set forth above.
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request because Finjan’s Requests were
`improperly served as set forth in the General Objections above. Juniper provides this specific
`objection and response in an abundance of caution and in order to facilitate discovery, although
`this Request is moot and no response is required.
`Juniper also specifically objects to the definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as
`including Advanced Threat Protection Appliance and Contrail. Advanced Threat Protection
`Appliance was not identified in Finjan’s Complaint by name or technology and is therefore not
`part of this case. See Richtek Tech. Corp. v. uPi Semiconductor Corp., 2016 WL 1718135, at *2
`(N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2016) (Alsup, J.). Contrail is not alleged to infringe any Asserted Patent.
`Juniper interprets this Request as excluding Advanced Threat Protection Appliance and Contrail.
`Juniper also specifically objects to the definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as including “all
`previous or currently contemplated versions, revision, releases, or continuations of said Juniper
`products and services, and all additional products accused of infringement by Finjan in this action
`in infringement contentions or similar pleadings.” This definition is objectionable at least because
`it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and may include instrumentalities released outside of the
`statutory damages period. Juniper will interpret this Request as limited to only those
`instrumentalities properly 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, specifically
`including documents protected by the common interest privilege and/or joint defense agreements.
`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
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10527218
`
`- 106 -
`
`JUNIPER’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE
`TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-4 Filed 06/14/19 Page 5 of 8
`
`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
`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 objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
`burdensome, oppressive, vague and ambiguous, and seeks irrelevant information, including with
`respect to Finjan’s overly broad definition of “relating to.” Juniper will not search for documents
`that do not directly pertain to the claims and defenses at issue in this matter that are dated from
`within the statutory damages period.
`Subject to these specific objections and the General Objections incorporated herein,
`Juniper responds that it will produce relevant, responsive, and non-privileged documents sufficient
`to show the sales and revenue for the accused SRX Series, Sky ATP, and Space Security Director
`products within the statutory damages period, to the extent that such documents currently exist in
`Juniper’s possession, custody, or control and can be located after a reasonably diligent search
`without undue burden to Juniper as described above.
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
`Juniper incorporates herein by reference all General Objections set forth above.
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request because Finjan’s Requests were
`improperly served as set forth in the General Objections above. Juniper provides this specific
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10527218
`
`- 107 -
`
`JUNIPER’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE
`TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-4 Filed 06/14/19 Page 6 of 8
`
`objection and response in an abundance of caution and in order to facilitate discovery, although
`this Request is moot and no response is required.
`Juniper also specifically objects to the definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as
`including Contrail. Contrail is not alleged to infringe any Asserted Patent. Juniper also
`specifically objects to the definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as including “all additional
`products accused of infringement by Finjan in this action in infringement contentions or similar
`pleadings,” particularly Spotlight Secure Threat Intelligence Platform. That product was not
`identified in the operative complaint and it is therefore not part of this case. See id.; see also
`Richtek Tech. Corp. v. uPi Semiconductor Corp., 2016 WL 1718135, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29,
`2016) (Alsup, J.). Accordingly, Juniper will interpret this Interrogatory as excluding Juniper’s
`Contrail and Spotlight Secure Threat Intelligence Platform products. Juniper also objects to the
`definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” to the extent that it purports to include previous or
`currently contemplated versions, revision, releases, or continuations of any Juniper products or
`services other than those specifically identified (including by model number) in Finjan’s
`Infringement Contentions and also in the operative complaint. Juniper will interpret this
`Interrogatory 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, specifically
`including documents protected by the common interest privilege and/or joint defense agreements.
`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
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10527218
`
`- 108 -
`
`JUNIPER’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE
`TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-4 Filed 06/14/19 Page 7 of 8
`
`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
`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 objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
`burdensome, oppressive, vague and ambiguous, and seeks irrelevant information, including with
`respect to Finjan’s overly broad definition of “relating to.” Juniper will not search for documents
`that do not directly pertain to the claims and defenses at issue in this matter that are dated from
`within the statutory damages period.
`Subject to these specific objections and the General Objections incorporated herein,
`Juniper further responds that it will produce relevant, responsive, and non-privileged documents
`sufficient to show the sales and revenue for the accused ATP Appliance within the statutory
`damages period, to the extent that such documents currently exist in Juniper’s possession, custody,
`or control and can be located after a reasonably diligent search without undue burden to Juniper as
`described above.
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
`Documents, communications, or things sufficient to identify each of the Accused
`Instrumentalities by type and model number, including any internal names used within Juniper for
`each of the Accused Instrumentalities.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
`Juniper incorporates herein by reference all General Objections set forth above.
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10527218
`
`- 109 -
`
`JUNIPER’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE
`TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-4 Filed 06/14/19 Page 8 of 8
`
`DATED: June 18, 2018
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`By: /s/ Sharon Song________________
`Sharon Song
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10527218
`
`- 180 -
`
`JUNIPER’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE
`TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`