`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`)
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`)
`DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS,
`)
`INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF FINJAN,
`)
`INC.’S FIFTH SET OF REQUESTS FOR
`)
`PRODUCTION (NOS. 107-128)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`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
`
`10629494
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`JUNIPER'S RESPONSE TO FINJAN'S
`FIFTH SET OF RFPS (NOS. 107-128)
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34, Defendant Juniper Networks, Inc.
`(“Juniper”) hereby submits the following objections and responses (collectively, the “Responses”)
`to the Fifth Set of Requests for Production (collectively, the “Requests”) by Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.
`
`(“Finjan”).
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Juniper has not completed discovery in this action and has not completed preparation for
`trial. These Responses, while based on diligent inquiry and investigation by Juniper, necessarily
`reflect only the current state of Juniper’s knowledge, understanding, and belief based upon the
`information reasonably available to Juniper at this time. Juniper anticipates that further facts and
`information may be discovered. Without in any way obligating itself to do so, Juniper reserves the
`right to modify, supplement, revise, or amend these Responses and to correct any errors or
`omissions which may be contained herein in light of the information that Juniper may
`subsequently obtain or discover. Furthermore, these Responses are provided without prejudice to
`Juniper’s use or reliance on, at trial, hearing, or otherwise, subsequently discovered facts or
`information or facts or information omitted from these responses. The following Responses are
`given without prejudice to Juniper’s right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered
`fact. Juniper accordingly reserves the right to change any and all responses herein as additional
`facts are ascertained, analyses are performed, legal research is completed, and contentions are
`investigated. This introductory statement shall apply to each and every Response given herein and
`shall be incorporated by reference as though set forth in each Response appearing below.
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`These objections are hereby incorporated, as though set forth in full, into the response to
`each and every Request. Juniper reserves the right to make additional objections as may be
`appropriate and nothing contained herein shall be in any way construed as a waiver of any such
`objection. Juniper has not yet completed its investigation of the facts pertaining to this action, its
`discovery, or its preparation for trial. Juniper’s responses and objections as set forth below are
`made without prejudice to Juniper’s right to assert any additional or supplemental responses or
`objections if Juniper discovers additional grounds for such responses or objections.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`JUNIPER'S RESPONSE TO FINJAN'S
`FIFTH SET OF RFPS (NOS. 107-128)
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 4 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`By making this response, Juniper does not concede that any of the requested information is
`proportional to the needs of the case, relevant, properly discoverable, or admissible, and Juniper
`reserves its right to object to discovery into the subject matter addressed in any information
`produced and to the introduction of such information into evidence.
`Juniper makes the following general objections (collectively, the “General Objections”) to
`each request contained within Finjan’s Requests. The assertion of the same, similar, or additional
`objections or the provision of responses to the requests does not constitute a waiver any of
`Juniper’s objections as set forth below:
`1.
`Juniper objects to the definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as including all
`“products and services identified in Finjan’s Infringement Contentions,” specifically including
`Spotlight Secure Threat Intelligence Platform, because this product was not identified in the
`operative complaint 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.) (“[T]he
`filing of a complaint sets the cut-off date for the scope of a case, subject to the possibility of
`supplementation. Nevertheless, for some time, patent owners have made open-ended allegations
`in their complaint that do not specifically identify the accused products and used amendments to
`their infringement contentions to expand the scope of the case to encompass products…without
`the need to file a supplemental complaint—essentially sneaking new products into the case
`through the back door of infringement contentions.”). 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. To the extent applicable, Juniper will interpret
`each and every 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.
`2.
`Juniper objects to the definition of “You,” “Your,” and “Defendant” as overbroad,
`unduly burdensome, oppressive, indefinite, vague and ambiguous. Juniper also objects to these
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`JUNIPER'S RESPONSE TO FINJAN'S
`FIFTH SET OF RFPS (NOS. 107-128)
`(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 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 5 of 36
`
`definitions to the extent that they purport to impose discovery obligations on persons or entities
`other than the parties to this action. Juniper will construe the terms to mean “Juniper Networks,
`Inc.”
`
`3.
`Juniper objects to the Requests, including but not limited to the Instructions and
`Definitions, to the extent they are inconsistent with, seek to impose obligations not required by, or
`seek to expand the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
`Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Rules of the Northern District of California, any Order of the
`Court, or any agreement between the parties, specifically including the parties’ agreement set forth
`in the Joint Case Management Statement and the stipulation regarding discovery of ESI. Juniper
`will not identify the Request in response to which any document is being produced for any
`Request. Juniper will furnish only information in the direct possession, custody, or control of
`Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper will not state if Juniper cannot fully respond to the following
`Requests after exercising due diligence to secure the information requested; specify the portion of
`each Request that cannot be responded to fully and completely; state what efforts were made to
`obtain the requested information or the facts relied upon that support the contention that the
`Request cannot be answered fully and completely; or state what knowledge, information, or belief
`Juniper has concerning the unanswered portion of any such request.
`4.
`Juniper objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information or documents
`that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, that evidence or constitute attorney work product,
`that are the subject of confidentiality agreements with third parties, that are the subject of a
`protective order in any separate proceeding, or that otherwise are not discoverable or are the
`subject of any other privilege, whether based upon statute or recognized at common law.1 Juniper
`further specifically objects to the Instructions in the Requests as imposing an undue burden that is
`not proportional to the needs of the case with respect to the stated demands for the contents of a
`privilege log, including because the Instructions demand information not reasonably necessary for
`
`
`1 Any production of privileged information (whether “inadvertent” or otherwise) is
`governed by the parties’ agreement set forth in the Joint Case Management Statement (see Dkt.
`No. 31 at p. 5-6) and as set forth in the parties’ stipulation regarding discovery of ESI.
`JUNIPER'S RESPONSE TO FINJAN'S
`FIFTH SET OF RFPS (NOS. 107-128)
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 6 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`the purposes of assessing privilege, such as “the number of pages in such document,” and which
`go beyond the requirements set forth by this Court. Documents withheld under such an objection
`will be listed on a “privilege log” pursuant to this Court’s Supplemental Order To Order Setting
`Initial Case Management Conference In Civil Cases Before Judge William Alsup. Pursuant to the
`parties’ agreement as set forth in the Joint Case Management Statement, Juniper will not log any
`item created on or after September 29, 2017 (see Dkt. No. 31 at p. 5).
`5.
`Juniper also specifically objects to the extent that the Requests seek information
`related to any allegations that were dismissed in this matter. The Court has dismissed Finjan’s
`allegations regarding indirect and willful infringement, so, to the extent applicable, Juniper will
`interpret each and every Request as not seeking information regarding indirect or willful
`infringement.
`6.
`Juniper objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is not
`reasonably accessible due to undue burden or cost, the search for which is not proportional to the
`needs of the case. 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-networked memory disks or drives, regardless of whether those drives are owned by the
`company or personally by its employees and regardless of whether those drives are internal to a
`computer or external, as such searches are not proportional to the needs of the case because such
`searches are not reasonably accessible due to undue burden and cost 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 proportional to the needs of the case because such searches are not reasonably
`accessible due to undue burden and cost and any information contained therein is likely to be
`cumulative to and/or duplicative of information maintained on active network servers.
`7.
`Juniper objects to the Requests to the extent that they require Juniper to produce
`information not in the possession, custody, or control of Juniper. Juniper also objects to the
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`JUNIPER'S RESPONSE TO FINJAN'S
`FIFTH SET OF RFPS (NOS. 107-128)
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 7 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`Requests to the extent they seek information already in the possession of Finjan or an affiliate of
`Finjan or reasonably accessible to Finjan or an affiliate of Finjan.
`8.
`Juniper objects to these Requests to the extent they are unreasonably cumulative or
`duplicative and therefore unduly burdensome and harassing to Juniper.
`9.
`Juniper objects to the Requests to the extent they assume the existence of facts that
`do not exist and the occurrence of events that did not take place and to the extent they assert legal
`arguments or characterizations. Any response of Juniper to an individual Request is not intended
`to be, and shall not be construed as, an admission that any factual or legal predicate stated in the
`Request is accurate.
`10.
`Juniper objects to the Requests to the extent that the time frame for which
`information is sought is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Juniper will limit its response to
`documents and information created within the statutory patent damages period, or within a shorter
`period as appropriate for each Request based on its relevance to the claims and defenses at issue in
`this litigation.
`11.
`Juniper objects to the Requests, including but not limited to the Definitions and
`Instructions, to the extent that they require legal conclusions, expert testimony, are premature,
`and/or are more appropriately obtained through other discovery such as oral depositions.
`12.
`Juniper objects to Finjan’s proposed definition of “document(s)” as overly broad
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it exceeds any definition provided in the Federal Rules
`of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Rules of the Northern District of
`California, any Order of the Court, or any agreement between the parties. Juniper will respond to
`these Requests by treating “document(s)” as having the scope provided by the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Rules of the Northern District of
`California, any Order of the Court, or any agreement between the parties.
`13.
`Juniper objects to the definition of “communication” as overly broad and unduly
`burdensome to the extent that it exceeds any definition provided in the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Rules of the Northern District of California,
`any Order of the Court, or any agreement between the parties. Juniper will respond to these
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`JUNIPER'S RESPONSE TO FINJAN'S
`FIFTH SET OF RFPS (NOS. 107-128)
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 8 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`Requests by treating “communication” as having the scope provided by the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Rules of the Northern District of California,
`any Order of the Court, or any agreement between the parties.
`14.
`Juniper objects to the definition of “relate to,” “reflecting,” “relating to,” and
`“concerning” as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case.
`Juniper will respond to these Requests by treating these terms as meaning “pertaining directly to
`and reasonably accessible without undue burden.” Juniper also specifically objects to the
`Requests to the extent that they seek information regarding entities other than Juniper or Finjan;
`Juniper’s production or non-production of information regarding other persons or entities should
`not be construed as an explicit or implicit admission of any type.
`15.
`Juniper objects to the instructions related to responses in which Juniper asserts it
`“lacks the ability to comply,” to the extent these instructions purport to create a logging obligation
`or objection obligation on the part of Juniper beyond that required by the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Rules of the Northern District of California,
`any Order of the Court, or any agreement between the parties.
`16.
`Juniper objects to the instructions to the extent they specify a form for the
`production of electronically stored information different than the form that the parties have agreed
`to produce documents in pursuant to the stipulation regarding discovery of ESI. To the extent
`Juniper produces documents in response to these Requests, Juniper will produce such documents
`in the form or forms agreed upon by the parties in the stipulation regarding discovery of ESI.
`Juniper further objects to the instructions to the extent they purport to expand the scope of relevant
`discovery, including because such information goes beyond the parties’ agreement as set forth in
`the stipulation regarding discovery of ESI and because such information is not proportional to the
`needs of the case or even relevant. Juniper will not produce: a description of the system from
`which document were derived; information sufficient to ensure that the source of each document
`can be determined; or documents attached to responsive documents, including any addenda,
`appendixes, attachments, or enclosures.
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`JUNIPER'S RESPONSE TO FINJAN'S
`FIFTH SET OF RFPS (NOS. 107-128)
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 9 of 36
`
`The General Objections set forth above are made without prejudice to and without waiver
`of Juniper’s right to object on all appropriate grounds to the specific information sought by each
`Request. These objections are hereby incorporated, as though set forth in full, into the Response
`to each and every Request. Juniper reserves the right to make such additional objections as may
`be appropriate and nothing contained herein shall be in any way construed as a waiver of any such
`objection.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`JUNIPER'S RESPONSE TO FINJAN'S
`FIFTH SET OF RFPS (NOS. 107-128)
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`Subject to the General Objections outlined above and the more specific objections set forth
`below, Juniper responds as follows:
`RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 107:
`Documents, communications, or things sufficient to show the in-licensing or out-licensing
`of patents or technology related to the Accused Instrumentalities.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 107:
`Juniper incorporates herein by reference all General Objections set forth above.
`Juniper also specifically objects to the definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as
`overbroad and unduly burdensome. 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, namely certain of Juniper’s SRX Gateways, Sky ATP, and the ATP
`Appliance.
`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 the joint defense / common interest privilege.
`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
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`JUNIPER'S RESPONSE TO FINJAN'S
`FIFTH SET OF RFPS (NOS. 107-128)
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`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 “related to” and with respect to the vague term
`“technology.” 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 has already produced licenses related to the Accused Instrumentalities at
`JNPR-FNJN_29013_00163501 through _00163657, JNPR-FNJN_29035_00962466 through
`_00962515, JNPR-FNJN_29035_00962517 through _00962667, and JNPR-
`FNJN_29036_00962668 through _00962746. To the extent that Finjan seeks discovery beyond
`the substantial documentation that Juniper has already produced, Juniper will meet and confer with
`Finjan regarding the scope of this request.
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 108:
`All licensing agreements between Juniper and any third party regarding patents,
`proprietary technology, or know-how related to or comparable to the technology disclosed in the
`Asserted Patents.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 108:
`Juniper incorporates herein by reference all General Objections set forth above.
`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
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`JUNIPER'S RESPONSE TO FINJAN'S
`FIFTH SET OF RFPS (NOS. 107-128)
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`privilege or immunity, whether based upon statute or recognized at common law, specifically
`including the joint defense / common interest privilege.
`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
`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 “related 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 has already produced licenses related to the Accused Instrumentalities at
`JNPR-FNJN_29013_00163501 through _00163657, JNPR-FNJN_29035_00962466 through
`_00962515, JNPR-FNJN_29035_00962517 through _00962667, and JNPR-
`FNJN_29036_00962668 through _00962746. To the extent that Finjan seeks discovery beyond
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`JUNIPER'S RESPONSE TO FINJAN'S
`FIFTH SET OF RFPS (NOS. 107-128)
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 13 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`the substantial documentation that Juniper has already produced, Juniper will meet and confer with
`Finjan regarding the scope of this request.
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 109:
`All communications between Juniper and Palo Alto Networks regarding patents,
`proprietary technology, or know-how related to or comparable to the technology disclosed in the
`Asserted Patents.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 109:
`Juniper incorporates herein by reference all General Objections set forth above.
`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 the joint defense / common interest privilege.
`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
`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.
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`JUNIPER'S RESPONSE TO FINJAN'S
`FIFTH SET OF RFPS (NOS. 107-128)
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 14 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`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 “related 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 will meet and confer with Finjan regarding the relevance and scope of this request.
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 110:
`All agreements between Juniper and Palo Alto Networks regarding patents, proprietary
`technology, or know-how related to or comparable to the technology disclosed in the Asserted
`Patents.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 110:
`Juniper incorporates herein by reference all General Objections set forth above.
`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 the joint defense / common interest privilege.
`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
`whether those drives are owned by Juniper or personally by its employees and regardless of
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`JUNIPER'S RESPONSE TO FINJAN'S
`FIFTH SET OF RFPS (NOS. 107-128)
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 530-5 Filed 06/14/19 Page 15 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`whether those drives are internal or external, as such searches are not reasonably accessible and
`any information contained therein is lik