Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 543-2 Filed 06/20/19 Page 1 of 23
`
`Exhibit B
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 543-2 Filed 06/20/19 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`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 B. 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 Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.’S SECOND
`SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
`(NOS. 1-15)
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (NOS. 1-15)
`
`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 543-2 Filed 06/20/19 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) responds to Defendant, Juniper
`
`Networks, Inc.’s (“Juniper” or “Defendant”) Second Set of Requests for Production (“Requests”).
`
`Finjan makes these objections and responses herein (collectively “Responses”) based solely on its
`
`current knowledge, understanding, and belief as to the facts and information reasonably available to it
`
`as of the date of the Responses.
`
`Finjan’s response that it will produce documents means that Finjan will produce relevant,
`
`responsive, and non-privileged documents located after a reasonable search of documents in its
`
`custody and control. Finjan’s response that it will produce documents does not mean that any
`
`responsive documents actually exist; only that Finjan has made, and will continue to make, a
`
`reasonable, good faith effort to locate responsive documents. Finjan will produce documents in
`
`response to these requests on a rolling basis and will complete the production no later than March 29,
`
`2019.
`
`Additional discovery and investigation may lead to additions to, changes in, or modifications of
`
`these Responses. The Responses, therefore, are given without prejudice to Finjan’s right to
`
`supplement these Responses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), or to provide subsequently discovered
`
`information and to introduce such subsequently discovered information at the time of any trial or
`
`proceeding in this action.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Finjan hereby incorporates by reference each and every general objection set forth
`
`below into each and every specific Response. From time to time, a specific Response may repeat a
`
`general objection for emphasis or for some other reason. The failure to include a general objection in a
`
`specific Response shall not be interpreted as a waiver of that general objection to that Response.
`
`2.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they are vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, or compound.
`
`3.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek information not relevant to the claim or defense of any
`
`party and are not proportional to the needs of this case.
`
`1
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (NOS. 1-15)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 543-2 Filed 06/20/19 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.
`
`5.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition and Instruction to the extent they
`
`are overly broad because they are not properly limited in time.
`
`6.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they are unduly burdensome and oppressive, to the extent they subject Finjan to unreasonable and
`
`undue effort or expense.
`
`7.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they seek information beyond Finjan’s actual knowledge, custody, or control.
`
`8.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent they
`
`are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.
`
`9.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent they
`
`seek information that is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome,
`
`or less expensive.
`
`10.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they seek information within Defendant’s possession, custody or control.
`
`11.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent they
`
`seek information in the public domain, information equally available to Defendant from another
`
`source, and/or information that can be obtained more efficiently by Defendant through other means of
`
`discovery. Defendant can ascertain such information from its own records or from other sources at
`
`least as readily as Finjan.
`
`12.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they seek confidential, business, financial, proprietary or sensitive information, or trade secrets of third
`
`parties, which may be subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality agreements or in
`
`which any third party has an expectation of privacy. Such information shall not be provided absent an
`
`express order to the contrary from a court of competent jurisdiction, or an authorization from the third
`
`party having the interest in the information’s confidentiality.
`
`2
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (NOS. 1-15)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 543-2 Filed 06/20/19 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`13.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent they
`
`seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other
`
`applicable law, privilege, doctrine or immunity. Finjan will not disclose any information so protected,
`
`and the inadvertent disclosure or identification of any such information is not intended as, and will not
`
`constitute, a waiver of such privilege, doctrine, or immunity.
`
`14.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent they
`
`call for a legal conclusion. Finjan’s Responses shall not be construed as providing legal conclusions
`
`concerning the meaning or application of any terms used in Defendant’s Requests.
`
`15.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they are premature and/or cumulative, as they seek documents that are set to be disclosed on scheduled
`
`dates directed by the Court or the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules.
`
`16.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they are premature, as the Court has not yet entered a claim construction order in this action.
`
`17.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction as premature to
`
`the extent they seek information that will be the subject of expert testimony.
`
`18.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they impose obligations inconsistent with the Joint Case Management Statement filed on February 15,
`
`2018 at Dkt. No. 31, Judge Alsup’s standing orders, the Patent Local Rule 2-2 Interim Model
`
`Protective Order, or the protective order and/or ESI order to be entered in this case.
`
`19.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent they
`
`assume or mischaracterize any facts. Finjan’s Responses shall not be construed as agreeing to any
`
`facts or characterizations contained in Defendant’s Requests.
`
`20.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they purport to impose any requirement or discovery obligation greater than or different from those
`
`imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, or orders of the Court
`
`governing these proceedings.
`
`3
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (NOS. 1-15)
`
`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 543-2 Filed 06/20/19 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they are unduly burdensome and oppressive on the grounds that they purport to require Finjan to
`
`search its facilities and inquire of its employees other than those facilities and employees that would
`
`reasonably be expected to have responsive information. Finjan’s Responses and productions are based
`
`upon: (1) a search of facilities and files that could reasonably be expected to contain responsive
`
`information and (2) inquiries of Finjan’s employees and/or representatives who could reasonably be
`
`expected to possess responsive information.
`
`22.
`
`Finjan’s written responses and production of documents are not intended to waive, and
`
`do not constitute waiver of, any objection that Finjan may have to the admissibility, authenticity,
`
`competency, relevance, or materiality of any documents produced or referred to in response to a
`
`Request. For any and all written responses and production of documents, Finjan reserves all objections
`
`or other questions regarding the admissibility, authenticity, competency, relevance, or materiality of
`
`any documents produced or referred to in response to a Request, as evidence in this Litigation or any
`
`other proceeding, action, or trial.
`
`23.
`
`Finjan’s written responses and production of documents are based upon information and
`
`writings available to and located by its attorneys as of service of these Responses. Finjan has not
`
`completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not completed discovery in this action,
`
`and has not completed preparation for trial. All the information supplied and documents and things
`
`produced are based only on such information and documents that are reasonably available and
`
`specifically known to Finjan and its attorneys as of the date of service of these Responses. Therefore,
`
`Finjan’s written responses and production of documents are without prejudice to its right to
`
`supplement and/or amend its written responses and production of documents and to present at trial or
`
`other proceeding evidence discovered hereafter.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1.
`
`In addition to the objections set forth below, Finjan hereby specifically incorporates
`
`each and every general objection set forth above in its objections to Defendant’s definitions and
`
`instructions.
`
`4
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (NOS. 1-15)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 543-2 Filed 06/20/19 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definitions of the terms “Finjan,” “You,” and “Your,”
`
`and to each Request that incorporates any of these terms, to the extent they are overly broad and
`
`burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finjan
`
`further objects to these Definitions, and to each Request that incorporates any of these terms, to the
`
`extent that they call for a legal conclusion or seek documents or information protected from discovery
`
`by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege,
`
`doctrine or immunity. Finjan further objects to these Definitions, and to each Request that
`
`incorporates any of these terms, to the extent they include entities and persons over whom Finjan has
`
`no control.
`
`3.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definition of the term “Juniper” and to each Request that
`
`incorporates this term to the extent it excludes entities and persons over whom Defendant has
`
`ownership and/or control.
`
`4.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definition of the term “Trustwave Holding, Inc.” and to
`
`each Request that incorporates this term to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and not
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finjan further objects to this
`
`Definition, and to each Request that incorporates any of these terms, to the extent that they call for a
`
`legal conclusion or seek documents or information protected from discovery by the attorney-client
`
`privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine or immunity.
`
`Finjan further objects to this Definition, and to each Request that incorporates this term, to the extent it
`
`includes entities and persons over whom Trustwave Holdings, Inc. has no control.
`
`5.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definition of the term “KPMG US LLP” and to each
`
`Request that incorporates this term to the extent it is overly broad and burdensome and not reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finjan further objects to this Definition,
`
`and to each Request that incorporates this term, to the extent that it calls for a legal conclusion or seek
`
`documents or information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product
`
`doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine or immunity. Finjan further objects to this
`
`5
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (NOS. 1-15)
`
`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 543-2 Filed 06/20/19 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Definition, and to each Request that incorporates this term, to the extent it includes entities and persons
`
`over whom KPMG US LLP has no control.
`
`6.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definition of the terms “any,” “including,” “include” and
`
`“all,” and to each Request that incorporates either of these terms, to the extent they are overly broad,
`
`unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`7.
`
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Instruction Letters A-Q to the extent that they
`
`seek to impose any requirement or obligation greater or different than those imposed by the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and/or orders of the Court governing these
`
`proceedings.
`
`8.
`
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Instruction Letters A-Q to the extent that they are
`
`they are overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence.
`
`9.
`
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Instruction Letters A-Q to the extent that they are
`
`vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible.
`
`10.
`
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Instruction Letters A-Q to the extent that they
`
`impose obligations inconsistent with the agreed upon portions of the Joint Case Management
`
`Statement filed on June 1, 2017 at Dkt. No. 31, Judge Alsup’s standing orders, the Patent Local Rule
`
`2-2 Interim Model Protective Order, or the protective order and/or ESI order to be entered in this case.
`
`11.
`
`Finjan further objects to Defendant’s Instruction Letter M to the extent it seeks
`
`information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other
`
`applicable law, privilege, doctrine or immunity. Finjan further objects to Instruction Letter N to the
`
`extent it seeks to impose any requirement or obligation greater or different than those imposed by the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and/or orders of the Court governing
`
`these proceedings. Finjan objects to Defendant’s Instruction Letter M to the extent it is overbroad,
`
`unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`12.
`
`Additionally, Finjan 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
`
`6
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (NOS. 1-15)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 543-2 Filed 06/20/19 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`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, Finjan 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.
`
`REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
`
`Subject to and without waiving its general objections set forth above, each of which is
`
`specifically incorporated into the specific Responses contained below, Finjan responds to Defendant’s
`
`Requests as follows:
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
`
`All license agreements, royalty agreements, covenants-not-to-sue, settlement agreements,
`
`technology agreements, or similar agreements entered into between Finjan and Trustwave Holdings,
`
`Inc.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
`
`Finjan incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein. Finjan
`
`objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous particularly as to what it purports to mean by “license
`
`agreements, royalty agreements, covenants-not-to-sue, settlement agreements, technology agreements,
`
`or similar agreements.” Finjan objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and
`
`oppressive to the extent it is not proportional to the needs of the case. Finjan objects to this Request to
`
`the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the
`
`common interest doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine, or immunity; Finjan will not
`
`produce any privileged documents. Finjan further objects to this Request to the extent it calls for
`
`documents or information that is a third party’s trade secret and/or subject to confidentiality agreement
`
`with the third party. Finjan will not produce such confidential information without the Court’s order or
`
`7
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (NOS. 1-15)
`
`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 543-2 Filed 06/20/19 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`an express permission by the third party. Finjan objects to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of
`
`other requests.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds
`
`as follows: To the extent Finjan understands this Request, Finjan has already completed production of
`
`responsive documents to this Request.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
`
`All agreements between Finjan and Trustwave Holdings, Inc. concerning the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
`
`Finjan incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein. Finjan
`
`objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous particularly as to what it purports to mean by
`
`“agreements between Finjan and Trustwave Holdings, Inc.” Finjan objects to this Request as
`
`overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive to the extent it is not proportional to the needs of the
`
`case. Finjan objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
`
`privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest doctrine, or any other applicable law,
`
`privilege, doctrine, or immunity; Finjan will not produce any privileged documents. Finjan further
`
`objects to this Request to the extent it calls for documents or information that is a third party’s trade
`
`secret and/or subject to confidentiality agreement with the third party. Finjan will not produce such
`
`confidential information without the Court’s order or an express permission by the third party. Finjan
`
`objects to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of other requests. Finjan objects to this Request to
`
`the extent it is duplicative of other requests.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds
`
`as follows: To the extent Finjan understands this Request, Finjan has already completed production of
`
`responsive documents to this Request.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
`
`All communications concerning any agreements between Finjan and Trustwave Holdings, Inc.
`
`involving the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (NOS. 1-15)
`
`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 543-2 Filed 06/20/19 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
`
`Finjan incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein. Finjan
`
`objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous particularly as to what it purports to mean by
`
`“communications concerning any agreements between Finjan and Trustwave Holdings, Inc.” Finjan
`
`objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive to the extent it is not
`
`proportional to the needs of the case. Finjan objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information
`
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest doctrine, or
`
`any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine, or immunity; Finjan will not produce any privileged
`
`documents. Finjan further objects to this Request to the extent it calls for documents or information
`
`that is a third party’s trade secret and/or subject to confidentiality agreement with the third party.
`
`Finjan will not produce such confidential information without the Court’s order or an express
`
`permission by the third party. Finjan objects to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of other
`
`requests. Finjan objects to this request to the extent this material is properly covered under the ESI
`
`Order in this case.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds
`
`as follows: To the extent Finjan understands this Request and to the extent the requested documents
`
`exist, Finjan will produce responsive, non-privileged documents leading up to the November 2, 2009
`
`agreement that reference the Patents-in-Suit. Finjan will not produce communications regarding any
`
`breach of the November 2, 2009 agreement because such documents are not relevant, they involve
`
`third party confidential information and are not proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
`
`All communications concerning any efforts to license the Patents-in-Suit to Trustwave
`
`Holdings, Inc., regardless of whether or not a license resulted and regardless of whether internal to
`
`Finjan or between Finjan and Trustwave Holdings, Inc.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
`
`Finjan incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein. Finjan
`
`objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous particularly as to what it purports to mean by
`
`9
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (NOS. 1-15)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 543-2 Filed 06/20/19 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`“communications concerning any efforts to license the Patents-in-Suit to Trustwave Holdings, Inc.,”
`
`“license resulted” and “internal to Finjan.” Finjan objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome and oppressive to the extent it is not proportional to the needs of the case. Finjan objects
`
`to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
`
`product doctrine, the common interest doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine, or
`
`immunity; Finjan will not produce any privileged documents. Finjan further objects to this Request to
`
`the extent it calls for documents or information that is a third party’s trade secret and/or subject to
`
`confidentiality agreement with the third party. Finjan will not produce such confidential information
`
`without the Court’s order or an express permission by the third party. Finjan objects to this Request to
`
`the extent it is duplicative of other requests. Finjan objects to this request to the extent this material is
`
`properly covered under the ESI Order in this case.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds
`
`as follows: To the extent Finjan understands this Request and to the extent the requested documents
`
`exist, Finjan has already produced responsive, non-privileged documents regarding the license of the
`
`Patents-In-Suit to Trustwave Holdings, Inc. Any other communications regarding “any efforts to
`
`license the Patents-In-Suit” are not relevant, involve third party confidential information and are not
`
`proportional to the needs of the case. To the extent there are documents responsive to Request No. 3 in
`
`Juniper’s Second Set of Requests for Production that are responsive to this Request, Finjan will
`
`produce such documents subject to Finjan’s objections thereto.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
`
`All Documents related to the negotiation of, or performance of any agreement, between Finjan
`
`and Trustwave Holdings, Inc. related to the Patents-in-Suit, including any discussion of royalty rates or
`
`payment amounts.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
`
`Finjan incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein. Finjan
`
`objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous particularly as to what it purports to mean by “the
`
`negotiation of, or performance of any agreement” and “any discussion of royalty rates or payment
`
`10
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (NOS. 1-15)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 543-2 Filed 06/20/19 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`amounts.” Finjan objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive to the
`
`extent it is not proportional to the needs of the case. Finjan objects to this Request to the extent it
`
`seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common
`
`interest doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine, or immunity; Finjan will not produce
`
`any privileged documents. Finjan further objects to this Request to the extent it calls for documents or
`
`information that is a third party’s trade secret and/or subject to confidentiality agreement with the third
`
`party. Finjan will not produce such confidential information without the Court’s order or an express
`
`permission by the third party. Finjan objects to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of other
`
`requests. Finjan objects to this request to the extent this material is properly covered under the ESI
`
`Order in this case.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds
`
`as follows: To the extent Finjan understands this Request and to the extent the requested documents
`
`exist, this Request is duplicative of at least Requests (First Set) Nos. 2, 9, 15, 16 and Request (Second
`
`Set) Nos. 2 and 3 in which Finjan has agreed to produce documents subject to objections thereto
`
`Finjan will not produce communications regarding any breach of the November 2, 2009 agreement
`
`because such documents are not relevant, they involve third party confidential information and are not
`
`proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
`
`All Documents related to any Trustwave Holdings, Inc., systems, products, methods, processes,
`
`apparatuses, software or services that practice or allegedly practice any claim of any Patent-in-Suit.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
`
`Finjan incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein. Finjan
`
`objects to this Request to the extent it calls for legal conclusion. Finjan objects to this Request as
`
`vague and ambiguous particularly as to what it purports to mean by “any Trustwave Holdings, Inc.,
`
`systems, products, methods, processes, apparatuses, software or services that practice or allegedly
`
`practice any claim of any Patent-in-Suit.” Finjan objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome and oppressive to the extent it is not proportional to the needs of the case. Particularly,
`
`11
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (NOS. 1-15)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 543-2 Filed 06/20/19 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Trustwave Holdings, Inc.’s products are not accused of infringement in this case and therefore not
`
`relevant to this case. Finjan objects to this Request as overly burdensome to the extent it demands
`
`Finjan to provide documents that are publicly available. Finjan objects to this Request to the extent it
`
`seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common
`
`interest doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine, or immunity; Finjan will not produce
`
`any privileged documents. Finjan further objects to this Request to the extent it calls for documents or
`
`information that is a third party’s trade secret and/or subject to confidentiality agreement with the third
`
`party. Finjan will not produce such confidential information without the Court’s order or an express
`
`permission by the third party. Finjan objects to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of other
`
`requests. Finjan objects to this request to the extent this material is properly covered under the ESI
`
`Order in this case.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds
`
`as follows: To the extent Finjan understands this Request and to the extent it has not been produced
`
`already, Finjan will pro