Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 622 Filed 09/30/19 Page 1 of 7
`
`Pages 1-7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a
`Delaware Corporation,
`
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`Defendant.
`_____________________________)
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS S. HIXSON
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`For Defendant:
`
`JAMES R. HANNAH, ESQ.
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, California 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`KEVIN X. WANG, ESQ.
`Irell & Manella, LLP
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, California 92660
`(949) 760-0991
`
`JOSHUA P. GLUCOFT, ESQ.
`Irell & Manella, LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`(310) 277-1010
`
`Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; transcript
`produced by transcription service.
`
`) Case No. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`San Francisco, California
`Courtroom A, 15th Floor
`Wednesday, July 10, 2019
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`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
`
`
`
`Pages 1-7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a
`Delaware Corporation,
`
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`Defendant.
`_____________________________)
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS S. HIXSON
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`For Defendant:
`
`JAMES R. HANNAH, ESQ.
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, California 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`KEVIN X. WANG, ESQ.
`Irell & Manella, LLP
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, California 92660
`(949) 760-0991
`
`JOSHUA P. GLUCOFT, ESQ.
`Irell & Manella, LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`(310) 277-1010
`
`Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; transcript
`produced by transcription service.
`
`) Case No. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`San Francisco, California
`Courtroom A, 15th Floor
`Wednesday, July 10, 2019
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 622 Filed 09/30/19 Page 2 of 7
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`(Cont’d.)
`
`Transcription Service:
`
`2
`
`Peggy Schuerger
`Ad Hoc Reporting
`2220 Otay Lakes Road, Suite 502-85
`Chula Vista, California 91915
`(619) 236-9325
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 622 Filed 09/30/19 Page 3 of 7
`
`3
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
`
`WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2019 2:02 P.M.
`
`(Call to order of the Court.)
`
`--oOo--
`
`THE CLERK:
`
`All right, everyone.
`
`We’re here in Civil
`
`Action 17-5659, Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc. Counsel,
`
`please state your appearances.
`
`Let’s start with the Plaintiff.
`
`MR. HANNAH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is James
`
`Hannah on behalf of Finjan.
`
`THE COURT: Good afternoon.
`
`MR. WANG: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is -- oh,
`
`hi. Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Kevin Wong with Irell &
`
`Manella, counsel for Juniper Networks.
`
`I’m also joined with
`
`Joshua Glucoft also at Irell & Manella as counsel for Juniper.
`
`THE COURT: Good afternoon. I’m just writing down the
`
`names of people.
`
`Okay.
`
`So I understand that there’s an issue
`
`that the parties wanted to raise. Who wants to frame it for me?
`
`MR. HANNAH:
`
`Your Honor, so this is James Hannah on
`
`behalf of Finjan. So what we have here is a situation where our
`
`CEO, Phil Hartstein, is going to be a 30(b)(6) witness for certain
`
`topics that Juniper gave us.
`
`Unfortunately, Mr. Hartstein is on
`
`a preplanned family vacation.
`
`And the earliest that we can get
`
`him for deposition is July 16th, which is one day after the fact
`
`discovery cutoff.
`
`And so we’ve offered to put him up on July 16th and, in
`
`response, Juniper stated that they wanted an extra day to submit
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 622 Filed 09/30/19 Page 4 of 7
`
`4
`
`their expert reports.
`
`And I said that that would be completely
`
`fine.
`
`However, it had to be useful.
`
`I wouldn’t say -- I’m not
`
`going to allow Juniper an entire -- see, what happens, if we
`
`extend it by one day, they’d get it over the weekend and moves the
`
`opening reports to a Monday, and they wanted us to give them an
`
`extension of one day just for their reports, not for both of our
`
`reports.
`
`And I vehemently disagreed.
`
`As Your Honor probably knows, there’s a reason why opening
`
`reports are due on the same day for both parties for validity and
`
`for infringement, and it’s so that one party can’t tailor their
`
`expert reports to respond to the other’s in the opening report.
`
`You know, you have to follow the schedule and you get, you know,
`
`your chance to rebut the other side (indiscernible) with your
`
`rebuttal report.
`
`And by -- I’m fine with the extension of a day.
`
`That’s no
`
`problem. But it’s got to be mutual. It can’t be our reports are
`
`due on Friday and their reports are due on Monday.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Counsel, let me stop you right here.
`
`I
`
`can’t modify Judge Alsup’s case management order, so I can’t
`
`authorize depositions beyond the date that he set as the close of
`
`fact discovery.
`
`I can’t change the deadline for expert reports.
`
`The dates in the fourth amended case management order, the only
`
`person who can change those is Judge Alsup.
`
`MR. HANNAH: Okay.
`
`THE COURT: So is there anything you want me to do that
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 622 Filed 09/30/19 Page 5 of 7
`
`5
`
`doesn’t involve changing dates in this case management order?
`
`(Pause.)
`
`MR. HANNAH: I’m not -- I guess -- I guess not. I mean,
`
`it would be the permission to -- we viewed this to be -- we
`
`thought it would be a discovery issue, which is why I think
`
`(indiscernible) reached out. But if it’s not, then I guess we’ll
`
`go the route of -- with Judge Alsup.
`
`I mean, it would be this permission to have the deposition
`
`the day on July 16th. And then --
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Yeah.
`
`I know that the discovery referral
`
`came to me.
`
`But I do have to manage discovery within the bounds
`
`of the District Judge’s case management order. So I wish I could
`
`help you out, but apologies.
`
`I simply can’t.
`
`MR. WANG: Your Honor, may I be heard? This is counsel
`
`for Juniper.
`
`THE COURT: Sure.
`
`MR. WANG:
`
`Juniper is asking that Finjan produce its
`
`witnesses within the fact discovery cutoff.
`
`At this point, the
`
`parties haven’t been able to come to an agreement to move back
`
`fact discovery cutoff, to change expert report deadlines. And so
`
`what we’re asking for is to have Finjan produce its 30(b)(6)
`
`witnesses and we noticed these topics, you know, about a month ago
`
`and so that’s the recovery that we’re seeking, which I do believe
`
`that you can grant.
`
`In the alternative, we’re open to discussing, you know, and
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 622 Filed 09/30/19 Page 6 of 7
`
`6
`
`allowing Finjan to extend the discovery cutoff by a day in
`
`exchange for giving us an extra day on the reports because the
`
`deposition is related to the reports. So I understood that, you
`
`know, you’re not able to change the case management order.
`
`And so the relief we’re asking for is to compel the -- compel
`
`the deposition to occur within the fact discovery cutoff.
`
`THE COURT: I see. Okay. Well, I certainly can order
`
`that relief.
`
`But it seems to me that, Finjan, if you want to
`
`change the deadline to July 16th, you need to go to Judge Alsup in
`
`some form.
`
`And unless and until you get relief from him, then you are
`
`bound by the July 15th fact discovery cutoff and you are obligated
`
`to make your witnesses available by then.
`
`MR. HANNAH: Understood, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Okay.
`
`All right.
`
`I think there’s -- it
`
`doesn’t sound like there’s anything else for me to do this
`
`afternoon.
`
`Is there?
`
`MR. HANNAH:
`
`No.
`
`Hopefully, you can take the rest of
`
`the afternoon off.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Not so lucky.
`
`But thank you for the
`
`thought.
`
`MR. WANG: And, Your Honor, just to clarify, Finjan will
`
`be required to produce its witnesses before this fact discovery
`
`cutoff unless we can come to an agreement or an arrangement
`
`directly with Judge Alsup.
`
`Is that right?
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 622 Filed 09/30/19 Page 7 of 7
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 622 Filed 09/30/19 Page7of 7
`
`THE COURT: Yes. That’s correct.
`
`MR. WANG: Okay.
`
`Thank you.
`
`MR. HANNAH:
`
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE CLERE:
`
`Thank
`
`you, Counsel.
`
`I'm going to
`
`disconnect.
`
`(Proceedings adjourned at 2:06 p.m.)
`
`I, Peggy Schuerger, certify that
`
`the foreqoing is a
`
`correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording
`
`provided to me of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
`
`4Cin Sin
`
`Signature of Approved Transcriber
`
`Northern District of California
`
`Peqqy Schuerger
`Typed or Printed Name
`Ad Hoc Reporting
`Approved Transcription Provider
`for the U.S. District Court,
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
