Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-8 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 3
`
`Exhibit 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-8 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`Payne, Stephen
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Petersen, Ingrid
`Friday, May 17, 2019 12:47 PM
`~Caire, Yuridia
`~Andre, Paul; ~Hannah, James; ~Kobialka, Lisa; ~Manes, Austin; ~Kastens, Kristopher;
`Carson, Rebecca; Glucoft, Josh; Heinrich, Alan; Holland, Eileen; Isaac, Shawana; Kagan,
`Jonathan; Manzano, Jim; Mittleman, Harry; Quarnstrom, Brian; Theilacker, Leah; Wang,
`Kevin
`RE: Finjan v. Juniper
`
`Dear Yuri:
`
`As you know, the parties have been focused on prioritizing issues that related to the second round of the Patent
`Showdown, as well as the issues that were previously set for trial in July. Now that the Court has decided the second
`round of summary judgement motions and vacated the July trial date, we are trying to work with you to address the
`remaining fact discovery issues in an efficient and reasonable manner. As such, your allegations that Juniper has
`unreasonably delayed addressing Finjan’s discovery requests are unwarranted.
`
`We expected that Finjan would narrow the patents and claims that it is asserting per the Court’s directive in its
`submission on Wednesday, but we note that Finjan did not do so. Before we conduct any additional discovery, we think
`it makes sense for Finjan to identify the particular patents and claims it intends to pursue at the October trial. This is
`important because it will ensure that the parties are not wasting time on claims that Finjan has no intention of
`pursuing. When does Finjan intend to narrow its claims?
`
`With regard to depositions, we recently checked the deposition record and noticed that Finjan has already used 10 days
`of fact depositions: (1) Yuly Tenorio on 5/9/18, (2) Rakesh Manocha on 5/16/18, (3) Raju Manthena on 5/30/19, (4)
`Chandra Nagarajan on 5/31/18, (5) Meredith McKenzie on 11/14/18, (6) Michael Bushong on 11/15/18, (7) Scott Coonan
`on 11/16/18, (8) Shelly Gupta on 11/16/18, (9) Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Juniper (Alex Icasiano on 11/30/18 for
`approximately 3 1/2 hours + Shelly Gupta on 12/7/18 for approximately 3 hours), and (10) Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of
`Juniper (Khurram Isla on 2/7/19 approximately 4 hours)). Thus, based on our understanding of Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 30(a)(2), Finjan cannot take any additional depositions unless it obtains leave from the Court. Could you
`please let us know the basis for Finjan’s belief that it can take additional depositions (i.e., Jas, Touboul, and the
`additional Rule 30(b)(6)?
`
`With regard to Juniper’s supplemental discovery, Juniper intends to supplement several interrogatory responses next
`week. In addition, Juniper plans to produce updated financial data that (1) adds data from the months since Juniper’s
`last production, and (2) formats the data in a manner that may be easier to interpret. We are hoping to produce this
`updated financial data by the end of next week, but there is a chance that it may not be ready to produce until the
`following week.
`
`As for the remainder of Finjan’s outstanding requests, I can confirm the following:
`
`
`• With regard to Finjan’s request for documents sufficient to show the number of files submitted to and
`processed by Sky ATP since October 2015 (RFP Nos. 119-121), based on our current investigation it does not
`appear that such documents exist. However, we are investigating whether we can provide some information for
`a more limited time period.
`• With regard to Finjan’s RFP No. 31 (regarding documents that show products or services that were bundled and
`sold with the Accused Instrumentalities), it appears based on our current investigation that Juniper does not
`track this information in the normal course of business. As such, there does not appear to be any responsive
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-8 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 3
`
`documents to produce. We agree to continue to investigate this issue, and will let you know if we are able to
`locate any responsive documents.
`• With regard to licenses, Juniper has already produced all licenses involving comparable technology and/or
`economic circumstances. The specific licenses that Finjan has requested (Carbon Black, Palo Alto, and Cisco) are
`not relevant as they do not involve comparable technology or economic circumstances. However, as a
`compromise Juniper agrees to produce the license between Cisco and Juniper.
`• With regard to deposition transcripts, Juniper continues to believe that Finjan’s requests (RFP Nos. 114-116) are
`overly broad and unduly burdensome. However, as a compromise Juniper will agree to investigate whether
`there are any deposition transcripts for Juniper employees or representatives who were deposed in any prior
`patent litigations involving Sky ATP or ATP Appliance, and produce them if they exist.
`• With regard to Finjan’s request for documents sufficient to identify all servers that interact with Sky ATP and SRX
`devices (RFP Nos. 126 and 127), we have repeatedly told you that it is not possible for us to respond to these
`requests as they would encompass every single server that any Juniper customer has ever contacted. Juniper
`does not have documents sufficient to show this information, nor is it relevant. If Finjan is willing to
`appropriately narrow its request, Juniper would be happy to consider it. However, Finjan has thus far refused to
`narrow its request in any way.
`
`
`As always, we would be happy to schedule another call to discuss these issues with you if you believe that would be
`helpful.
`
`Best wishes,
`
`Ingrid
`
`
`From: Caire, Yuridia <YCaire@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:25 PM
`To: Petersen, Ingrid <ipetersen@irell.com>
`Cc: ~Andre, Paul <pandre@kramerlevin.com>; ~Hannah, James <jhannah@kramerlevin.com>; ~Kobialka, Lisa
`<lkobialka@kramerlevin.com>; ~Manes, Austin <amanes@kramerlevin.com>; ~Kastens, Kristopher
`<kkastens@kramerlevin.com>; Carson, Rebecca <RCarson@irell.com>; Glucoft, Josh <JGlucoft@irell.com>; Heinrich,
`Alan <AHeinrich@irell.com>; Holland, Eileen <EHolland@irell.com>; Isaac, Shawana <SIsaac@irell.com>; Kagan,
`Jonathan <JKagan@irell.com>; Manzano, Jim <JManzano@irell.com>; Mittleman, Harry <HMittleman@irell.com>;
`Quarnstrom, Brian <BQuarnstrom@irell.com>; Theilacker, Leah <LTheilacker@irell.com>; Wang, Kevin
`<kwang@irell.com>
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Juniper
`
`Ingrid,
`
`We met and conferred on this six weeks ago and at that time Juniper stated it would be producing information and
`supplemental responses within a couple of weeks. Juniper’s continued delay is unacceptable. Please identify what
`specifically you are producing and confirm that you will produce it at the latest with the discovery responses next
`week. For Mr. Jas, please provide availability on May 23 or 24th. For the outstanding 30(b)(6), it will depend on when
`Juniper provides the updated information but please provide where the witness is located and who it is.
`
`Yuri
`
`
`
`
`Yuridia Caire
`Associate
`
`2
`
`