Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 77-3 Filed 05/01/18 Page 1 of 3
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 77-3 Filed 05/01/18 Page 1 of 3
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 77-3 Filed 05/01/18 Page 2 of 3
`
`Song, Sharon
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`Glucoft, Josh
`Thursday, March 15, 2018 7:31 PM
`~Kastens, Kristopher
`~Andre, Paul; ~Kobialka, Lisa; ~Hannah, James; Kagan, Jonathan; Carson, Rebecca;
`Wang, Kevin; Holland, Eileen; ~Manes, Austin; Curran, Casey; ~Manes, Austin; ~Lee,
`Michael
`RE: Finjan v. Juniper - Discovery
`Juniper Revisions to ESI.DOCX; Finjan Edits to ESI Order 3-12-18 - Juniper Revisions to
`ESI.PDF; Juniper Revisions to PO.DOCX; Compare Finjan Revisions to PO 3-7-18 (clean)
`- Juniper Revisions to PO.PDF
`
`Kris,
`
`As I mentioned in my other email, Juniper is producing its source code on an highly expedited basis—just 11 days after
`service of infringement contentions instead of the 45 days contemplated by the Patent Local Rules. Juniper’s source code
`is the definitive documentation for how its products work and is also the most important documentation for Finjan’s
`case. We have requested expedited production by Finjan of documents that are essential to Juniper’s case, and Finjan
`must reciprocate with the same effort made by Juniper. Finjan must commit to produce the documents you list below by
`March 19, not on a “rolling” basis, given that these documents are essential to Juniper and readily available to Finjan. As
`for documents bearing confidential third party information, Finjan was required by the Interim Model Protective Order to
`provide prompt notice to any affected third parties after Finjan received our Requests For Production on March
`6. Assuming Finjan complied with its notice obligations, the deadline for third parties to object or seek a protective order
`is March 20. Therefore, Finjan must provide a date certain by which it will produce the balance of the categories of
`documents listed in my earlier email, in no event later than March 23.
`
`Juniper will continue to diligently work towards producing key documents in this case at or before the timeline set forth in
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and any applicable agreement between the parties. As a show of
`good faith, Juniper provides the following information regarding the technical knowledge of certain individuals previously
`identified in Juniper’s initial disclosures:
`
`
` Volodymyr Kuznetsov and Yuly Tenorio: May have technical information regarding Sky ATP
` Bruce Kao: May have technical information regarding SRX
` Rakesh Manocha: May have technical information regarding Space Security Director
`
`
`You will notice that these individuals are not listed as having information related to ATP Appliance or Spotlight Secure
`Threat Intelligence Platform. That is because, at the time the parties were required to serve initial disclosures, Juniper had
`no notice that those products might be part of the case since neither of those two products were referred to in any way in
`Finjan’s complaint. To Juniper’s surprise, these products appear in Finjan’s infringement contentions even though Finjan
`has not sought leave to amend its complaint. That is improper. 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.”). Finjan cannot “sneak” products into this case that are not identified in its complaint by name or at least
`specific technology. Finjan must amend its complaint if it wishes to seek discovery on these distinct products. Needless
`to say, the source code for these products will not be produced on March 19 because they are not part of the case and
`because Juniper cannot reasonably be expected to produce such large volumes of additional code on such short notice.
`
`Lastly, attached are Juniper’s proposed revisions to the Protective Order and ESI order.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 77-3 Filed 05/01/18 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`Thanks,
`Josh
`
`From: Kastens, Kris [mailto:KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com]
`Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 3:42 PM
`To: Glucoft, Josh
`Cc: ~Andre, Paul; ~Kobialka, Lisa; ~Hannah, James; Kagan, Jonathan; Carson, Rebecca; Wang, Kevin; Holland, Eileen;
`~Manes, Austin; Curran, Casey; ~Manes, Austin; ~Lee, Michael
`Subject: RE: Finjan v. Juniper - Discovery
` 
`Josh, 
` 
`Thank you for confirming that the source code is available for inspection on March 19th.  While this leaves little time for 
`Finjan to review the code before claim selection, Finjan identifies Michael Lee and Kris Kastens as reviewing the code on 
`March 19th‐20th.  Furthermore, we disagree that Juniper can make this production contingent on Finjan’s production of 
`certain unrelated material by March 19th.  Finjan requested production of Juniper’s source code, which is relevant, since 
`the day after Judge Alsup ordered that the “shootout” procedure for this case.  As such, Finjan will proceed with a 
`review on March 19th as indicated. 
` 
`In regards to the documents that Juniper is requesting, Finjan will serve its objections and responses to Juniper’s 
`Requests for Production in due course.  However, as a showing of good faith, Finjan can agree to start producing the 
`following on a rolling basis beginning on March 19th: 
` 
`
` Documents showing marking; 
` Non‐confidential invalidity contentions addressed to asserted patents; 
` Non‐confidential expert reports; and 
` Deposition transcripts of Finjan employees that do not include third party confidential information. 
`
` 
`We note that some of this was already produced, as some of it is part of the file history of the asserted patents.  In 
`regards to the other material requested, production by March 19th is impossible, as much the majority of these 
`documents were marked confidential by a third party.  Let us know when you are available to meet and confer on the 
`scope of these requests.   
` 
`To the extent that Juniper is alleging that Finjan’s production has been deficient, Finjan has already produced tens of 
`thousands of pages of its highly confidential documents (including documents showing marking with the patents), first 
`with its initial disclosures and then more with its infringement contentions.  Finjan has also already made its source code 
`available for inspection under the interim protective order.   
` 
`Sincerely, 
`Kris 
` 
`
`
`
`Kris Kastens
`Associate
`
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1715 F 650.752.1815
`
`
`2
`
`