Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 67-17 Filed 04/19/18 Page 1 of 12
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 67-17 Filed 04/19/18 Page 1 of 12
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 67-17 Filed 04/19/18 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`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,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS,
`INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF FINJAN,
`INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
`PRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`10465736
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 67-17 Filed 04/19/18 Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34, Defendant Juniper, Inc.
`
`(“Juniper”) hereby submits the following objections and responses (collectively, the “Responses”)
`
`to the First Set of Requests for Production (the “Requests”) by Defendant 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
`
`10
`
`right to modify, supplement, revise, or amend these Responses and to correct any errors or
`
`11
`
`omissions which may be contained herein in light of the information that Juniper may
`
`12
`
`subsequently obtain or discover. Furthermore, these Responses are provided without prejudice to
`
`13
`
`Juniper’s use or reliance on, at trial, hearing, or otherwise, subsequently discovered facts or
`
`14
`
`information or facts or information omitted from these responses. The following Responses are
`
`15
`
`given without prejudice to Juniper’s right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered
`
`16
`
`fact. Juniper accordingly reserves the right to change any and all responses herein as additional
`
`17
`
`facts are ascertained, analyses are performed, legal research is completed, and contentions are
`
`18
`
`investigated. This introductory statement shall apply to each and every Response given herein and
`
`19
`
`shall be incorporated by reference as though set forth in each Response appearing below.
`
`20
`
`Juniper’s production will be provided on a rolling basis phased to occur after disclosures
`
`21
`
`under Patent L.R. 3-4, pursuant to the parties’ agreement set forth in the stipulation regarding
`
`22
`
`discovery of ESI.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`These objections are hereby incorporated, as though set forth in full, into the response to
`
`25
`
`each and every Request. Juniper reserves the right to make additional objections as may be
`
`26
`
`appropriate and nothing contained herein shall be in any way construed as a waiver of any such
`
`27
`
`objection. Juniper has not yet completed its investigation of the facts pertaining to this action, its
`
`28
`
`discovery, or its preparation for trial. Juniper’s responses and objections as set forth below are
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10465736
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 67-17 Filed 04/19/18 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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.
`
`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 First Set of Requests for Production. The assertion of the
`
`same, similar, or additional objections or the provision of responses to the requests does not
`
`10
`
`constitute a waiver any of Juniper’s objections as set forth below:
`
`11
`
`1.
`
`Juniper objects to the Requests as improperly served. The parties’ electronic
`
`12
`
`service agreement as set forth in the Joint Case Management Statement requires email service on
`
`13
`
`at least jkagan@irell.com, rcarson@irell.com, jglucoft@irell.com, kwang@irell.com, and
`
`14
`
`eholland@irell.com, and, in light of the written notice provided by Juniper, ccurran@irell.com.
`
`15
`
`However, at least jkagan@irell.com, kwang@irell.com, and eholland@irell.com were not served
`
`16
`
`via email, and therefore Finjan’s attempted email service does not comply with the parties’
`
`17
`
`electronic service agreement and is ineffective. These Objections and Responses are provided in
`
`18
`
`an abundance of caution and in order to facilitate discovery, although the Requests are moot and
`
`19
`
`neither objections nor responses are required.
`
`20
`
`2.
`
`Juniper objects to the definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as including
`
`21
`
`Advanced Threat Protection Appliance. This instrumentality was not identified in Finjan’s
`
`22
`
`Complaint by name or technology and is therefore not part of this case. See Richtek Tech. Corp. v.
`
`23
`
`uPi Semiconductor Corp., 2016 WL 1718135, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2016) (Alsup, J.) (“[T]he
`
`24
`
`filing of a complaint sets the cut-off date for the scope of a case, subject to the possibility of
`
`25
`
`supplementation. Nevertheless, for some time, patent owners have made open-ended allegations
`
`26
`
`in their complaint that do not specifically identify the accused products and used amendments to
`
`27
`
`their infringement contentions to expand the scope of the case to encompass products…without
`
`28
`
`the need to file a supplemental complaint—essentially sneaking new products into the case
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10465736
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 67-17 Filed 04/19/18 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`through the back door of infringement contentions.”). To the extent applicable, Juniper will
`
`interpret each and every Request as directed only to instrumentalities accused in the operative
`
`3
`
`complaint in this matter.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`3.
`
`Juniper objects to the definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as including
`
`Contrail. Contrail is not alleged to infringe any Asserted Patent. Accordingly, to the extent
`
`applicable, Juniper will interpret each and every Request as excluding Juniper’s Contrail product.
`
`4.
`
`Juniper 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
`
`10
`
`in infringement contentions or similar pleadings.” This definition is objectionable at least because
`
`11
`
`it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and may include instrumentalities outside of the statutory
`
`12
`
`damages period. To the extent applicable, Juniper will interpret each and every Request as limited
`
`13
`
`to only those instrumentalities properly identified in both the operative complaint and Finjan’s
`
`14
`
`infringement contentions and also made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported into the U.S.
`
`15
`
`within the statutory damages period.
`
`16
`
`5.
`
`Juniper objects to the Requests, including but not limited to the Instructions and
`
`17
`
`Definitions, to the extent they are inconsistent with, seek to impose obligations not required by, or
`
`18
`
`seek to expand the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
`
`19
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Rules of the Northern District of California, any Order of the
`
`20
`
`Court, or any agreement between the parties, specifically including the parties’ agreement set forth
`
`21
`
`in the Joint Case Management Statement and the (anticipated) stipulation regarding discovery of
`
`22
`
`ESI with respect to paragraphs 15, 16, 18, and 20 of Judge Alsup’s Supplemental Order. See Dkt.
`
`23
`
`No. 31 at p. 15. Juniper will not identify the Request in response to which any document is being
`
`24
`
`produced for any Request. Juniper will furnish only information in the direct possession, custody,
`
`25
`
`or control of Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper will not state if Juniper cannot fully respond to the
`
`26
`
`following Requests after exercising due diligence to secure the information requested; specify the
`
`27
`
`portion of each Request that cannot be responded to fully and completely; state what efforts were
`
`28
`
`made to obtain the requested information or the facts relied upon that support the contention that
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10465736
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 67-17 Filed 04/19/18 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`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,
`
`specifically including documents protected by the common interest privilege and/or joint defense
`
`9
`
`agreements.1 Juniper further specifically objects to the Instructions in the Requests as imposing an
`
`10
`
`undue burden that is not proportional to the needs of the case with respect to the stated demands
`
`11
`
`for the contents of a privilege log, including because the Instructions demand information not
`
`12
`
`reasonably necessary for the purposes of assessing privilege, such as “the number of pages in such
`
`13
`
`document.” Documents withheld under such an objection will be listed on a “privilege log”
`
`14
`
`pursuant to anticipated agreement between the parties regarding the proper scope of such logs.
`
`15
`
`Pursuant to the parties’ agreement as set forth in the Joint Case Management Statement, Juniper
`
`16
`
`will not log any item created on or after September 29, 2017 (see Dkt. No. 31 at p. 5).
`
`17
`
`7.
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to the extent that the Requests seek information
`
`18
`
`related to any allegations that were dismissed in this matter. The Court has dismissed Finjan’s
`
`19
`
`allegations regarding indirect and willful infringement, so, to the extent applicable, Juniper will
`
`20
`
`interpret each and every Request as not seeking information regarding indirect or willful
`
`21
`
`infringement.
`
`22
`
`8.
`
`Juniper objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is not
`
`23
`
`reasonably accessible due to undue burden or cost, the search for which is not proportional to the
`
`24
`
`needs of the case. In particular, the parties have agreed in their stipulation regarding the discovery
`
`25
`
`of ESI that the following sources of information are not reasonably accessible: backup media
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`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.
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10465736
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 67-17 Filed 04/19/18 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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
`
`10
`
`accessible due to undue burden and cost and any information contained therein is likely to be
`
`11
`
`cumulative to and/or duplicative of information maintained on active network servers.
`
`12
`
`9.
`
`Juniper objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that Juniper
`
`13
`
`is contractually obligated not to disclose. Similarly, Juniper objects to the Requests to the extent
`
`14
`
`that they seek trade secrets, proprietary information, or other confidential information. As the
`
`15
`
`parties are still negotiating the terms of an appropriate Protective Order, Juniper provides these
`
`16
`
`responses subject to the terms of the Interim Model Protective Order.
`
`17
`
`10.
`
`Juniper objects to the Requests to the extent that they require Juniper to produce
`
`18
`
`information not in the possession, custody, or control of Juniper. Juniper also objects to the
`
`19
`
`Requests to the extent they seek information already in the possession of Finjan or an affiliate of
`
`20
`
`Finjan or reasonably accessible to Finjan or an affiliate of Finjan.
`
`21
`
`11.
`
`Juniper objects to these Requests to the extent they are unreasonably cumulative or
`
`22
`
`duplicative and therefore unduly burdensome and harassing to Juniper.
`
`23
`
`12.
`
`Juniper objects to the Requests to the extent they assume the existence of facts that
`
`24
`
`do not exist and the occurrence of events that did not take place and to the extent they assert legal
`
`25
`
`arguments or characterizations. Any response of Juniper to an individual Request is not intended
`
`26
`
`to be, and shall not be construed as, an admission that any factual or legal predicate stated in the
`
`27
`
`Request is accurate.
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10465736
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 67-17 Filed 04/19/18 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`13.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`this litigation.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`14.
`
`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.
`
`15.
`
`Juniper objects to the definition of “You,” “Your,” and “Defendant” as overbroad,
`
`10
`
`unduly burdensome, oppressive, indefinite, vague and ambiguous. Juniper also objects to these
`
`11
`
`definitions to the extent that they purport to impose discovery obligations on persons or entities
`
`12
`
`other than the parties to this action. Juniper will construe the terms to mean “Juniper Networks,
`
`13
`
`Inc.”
`
`14
`
`16.
`
`Juniper objects to Finjan’s proposed definition of “document(s)” as overly broad
`
`15
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it exceeds any definition provided in the Federal Rules
`
`16
`
`of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Rules of the Northern District of
`
`17
`
`California, any Order of the Court, or any agreement between the parties. Juniper will respond to
`
`18
`
`these Requests by treating “document(s)” as having the scope provided by the Federal Rules of
`
`19
`
`Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Rules of the Northern District of
`
`20
`
`California, any Order of the Court, or any agreement between the parties.
`
`21
`
`17.
`
`Juniper objects to the definition of “communication” as overly broad and unduly
`
`22
`
`burdensome to the extent that it exceeds any definition provided in the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`23
`
`Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Rules of the Northern District of California,
`
`24
`
`any Order of the Court, or any agreement between the parties. Juniper will respond to these
`
`25
`
`Requests by treating “communication” as having the scope provided by the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`26
`
`Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Rules of the Northern District of California,
`
`27
`
`any Order of the Court, or any agreement between the parties.
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10465736
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 67-17 Filed 04/19/18 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`18.
`
`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.
`
`19.
`
`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
`
`10
`
`or objection obligation on the part of Juniper beyond that required by the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`11
`
`Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Rules of the Northern District of California,
`
`12
`
`any Order of the Court, or any agreement between the parties.
`
`13
`
`20.
`
`Juniper objects to the requests to the extent they specify a form for the production
`
`14
`
`of electronically stored information different than the form that the parties have or will agree to
`
`15
`
`produce documents in pursuant to the (anticipated) stipulation regarding discovery of ESI. To the
`
`16
`
`extent Juniper produces documents in response to these Requests, Juniper will produce such
`
`17
`
`documents in the form or forms agreed upon by the parties in the (anticipated) stipulation
`
`18
`
`regarding discovery of ESI.
`
`19
`
`The General Objections set forth above are made without prejudice to and without waiver
`
`20
`
`of Juniper’s right to object on all appropriate grounds to the specific information sought by each
`
`21
`
`Request. These objections are hereby incorporated, as though set forth in full, into the Response
`
`22
`
`to each and every Request. Juniper reserves the right to make such additional objections as may
`
`23
`
`be appropriate and nothing contained herein shall be in any way construed as a waiver of any such
`
`24
`
`objection.
`
`25
`
`Subject to the General Objections outlined above and the more specific objections set forth
`
`26
`
`below, Juniper responds as follows:
`
`27
`
`RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
`
`28
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10465736
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 67-17 Filed 04/19/18 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`All documents, communications, or things relating to Finjan and its patents.
`
`2
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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
`
`10
`
`Appliance was not identified in Finjan’s Complaint by name or technology and is therefore not
`
`11
`
`part of this case. See Richtek Tech. Corp. v. uPi Semiconductor Corp., 2016 WL 1718135, at *2
`
`12
`
`(N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2016) (Alsup, J.). Contrail is not alleged to infringe any Asserted Patent.
`
`13
`
`Juniper interprets this Request as excluding Advanced Threat Protection Appliance and Contrail.
`
`14
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to the definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as including “all
`
`15
`
`previous or currently contemplated versions, revision, releases, or continuations of said Juniper
`
`16
`
`products and services, and all additional products accused of infringement by Finjan in this action
`
`17
`
`in infringement contentions or similar pleadings.” This definition is objectionable at least because
`
`18
`
`it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and may include instrumentalities released outside of the
`
`19
`
`statutory damages period. Juniper will interpret this Request as limited to only those
`
`20
`
`instrumentalities properly identified in both the operative complaint and Finjan’s infringement
`
`21
`
`contentions and also made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported into the U.S. within the
`
`22
`
`statutory damages period.
`
`23
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information or
`
`24
`
`documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, that evidence or constitute attorney
`
`25
`
`work product, or that otherwise are not discoverable or are the subject of any other applicable
`
`26
`
`privilege or immunity, whether based upon statute or recognized at common law, specifically
`
`27
`
`including documents protected by the common interest privilege and/or joint defense agreements.
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10465736
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 67-17 Filed 04/19/18 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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
`
`10
`
`whether those drives are owned by Juniper or personally by its employees and regardless of
`
`11
`
`whether those drives are internal or external, as such searches are not reasonably accessible and
`
`12
`
`any information contained therein is likely to be cumulative to and/or duplicative of information
`
`13
`
`maintained on active network servers. Additionally, Juniper will not search through hard copy
`
`14
`
`files as such searches are not reasonably accessible and any information contained therein is likely
`
`15
`
`to be cumulative to and/or duplicative of information maintained on active network servers.
`
`16
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Request as seeking information already in the
`
`17
`
`possession of or equally accessible to Finjan. Finjan already possesses all communications
`
`18
`
`between Juniper and Finjan and therefore this Request is unnecessary and harassing.
`
`19
`
`Juniper also objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
`
`20
`
`burdensome, oppressive, vague and ambiguous, and seeks irrelevant information, including with
`
`21
`
`respect to Finjan’s overly broad definition of “relating to.” Juniper will not search for documents
`
`22
`
`that do not directly pertain to the claims and defenses at issue in this matter that are dated from
`
`23
`
`within the statutory damages period.
`
`24
`
`Subject to these specific objections and the General Objections incorporated herein,
`
`25
`
`Juniper responds that it will produce relevant, responsive, and non-privileged communications
`
`26
`
`between Juniper and Finjan or documents that reference the Asserted Patents or Finjan, to the
`
`27
`
`extent that such documents currently exist in Juniper’s possession, custody, or control and can be
`
`28
`
`located after a reasonably diligent search without undue burden to Juniper as described above.
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10465736
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 67-17 Filed 04/19/18 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Subject to these specific objections and the General Objections incorporated herein,
`
`Juniper responds that it will meet and confer with Finjan regarding the proper scope of this
`
`3
`
`Request.
`
`4
`
`DATED: March 26, 2018
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`
`By: /s/ Joshua Glucoft
`Joshua Glucoft
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`
`
`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
`
`10465736
`
`
`- 121 -
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF RFPS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`
`
`