Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 495 Filed 02/14/23 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`***PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION***
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`
`Case No. 20-cv-06754-WHA (DMR)
`
`
`ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY
`LETTERS
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 378, 420
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`The parties filed a joint discovery letter in which Defendant Sonos, Inc. (“Sonos”) moves
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`to compel Plaintiff Google LLC (“Google”) to (1) designate a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`about aspects of the technical operation of Google’s accused products, and (2) respond to an
`
`interrogatory. [Docket No. 377.] This matter is suitable for resolution without a hearing. Civ.
`
`L.R. 7-1(b). For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Google seeks declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of four patents
`
`owned by Sonos: United States Patent Nos. 9,967,615; 10,779,033; 10,469,966; and 10,848,885.
`
`[Docket No. 125 (Second Am. Compl., “SAC”) ¶ 1.] The technology relates to wireless multi-
`
`room audio systems. The ‘615 patent is titled “Networked Music Playback.” The ‘033 patent is
`
`titled “Systems and Methods for Networked Music Playback.” The ‘966 and ‘885 patents are both
`
`titled “Zone Scene Management.” SAC Exs. 7-10.1
`
`Fact discovery closed on November 30, 2022. Dispositive motions are due by February 6,
`
`2023 and trial is scheduled to begin on May 8, 2023.
`
`The parties filed a joint discovery letter in which Sonos moves to compel Google to
`
`
`1 In a related case, No. 1-cv-07559 WHA, Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC, Sonos asserts claims for
`infringement of four other patents against Google. [See Docket No. 211.]
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 495 Filed 02/14/23 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`designate a witness or witnesses to testify on certain parts of Topic No. 1 in its Rule 30(b)(6)
`
`notice, and to provide further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15. [Docket No. 378 (Jt.
`
`Letter). The parties later notified the court that they had resolved their disputes as to Interrogatory
`
`No. 15 and Topic 1(iii)(a)-(c) (“stream transfer” accused functionality). [Docket Nos. 394, 413.]
`
`The outstanding disputes are:
`
`1. Whether the subtopics under Sonos’s Rule 30(b)(6) Topic No. 1 amount to multiple
`
`separate subject matters in excess of the number allowed by the Honorable William H. Alsup’s
`
`Supplemental Order to Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference in Civil Cases (dispute
`
`one);
`
`2. Whether Google must provide an additional designee on Topic 1(i) (dispute two);
`
`3. Whether Google must provide an additional designee on Topic No. 1(v)(a)-(d), (vi)(a)-
`
`(d), (vii)(a)-(d) (“controller device” topic) (dispute three);
`
`4. Whether Google must provide an additional designee on Topic No. 1(vi)(b)/(d),
`
`(vii)(b)/(d) (“cast-enabled player” topic) (dispute four); and
`
`5. Whether Sonos is entitled to a supplemental response to its Interrogatory No. 14 (dispute
`
`five).
`
`The court ordered the parties to file a supplemental joint letter addressing disputes three
`
`and four, along with relevant portions of a deposition transcript. The parties timely filed the
`
`supplemental joint letter and transcript. [Docket Nos. 414, 420 (Supp. Jt. Letter).] The court also
`
`ordered Google to identify docket cites for its claim that “Google has been found not to infringe
`
`Google Play Music.” [Docket No. 472.] Google cited 1) the court’s August 2, 2022 Order
`
`granting Google’s motion for partial summary judgment as to the ‘615 patent; and 2) Sonos’s
`
`November 2022 infringement chart for the ‘033 patent, which accuses various YouTube apps of
`
`infringing the ‘033 patent but does not include Google Play Music (Docket No. 406-2 at 1).
`
`[Docket No. 476.]
`
`II.
`
`DISCOVERY DISPUTE
`
`A.
`
`Sonos’s Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice
`
`Sonos’s Rule 30(b)(6) Topic No. 1 is “[t]he design and operation of the Accused
`
`2
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 495 Filed 02/14/23 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`Functionalities.” The 30(b)(6) notice defines four “Accused Functionalities” (discussed below
`
`where relevant) and Topic No. 1 contains the following seven subtopics:
`
`(i) the design and operation of the aforementioned “speaker group”
`Accused Functionality and source code that facilitates the same;
`
`(ii) the design and operation of the aforementioned “Casting”
`Accused Functionality relating to, and source code that facilitates the
`same for, each of: (a) the YouTube app, (b) the YouTube Kids app,
`(c) the YouTube Music app, (d) the YouTube TV app, (e) the Google
`Play Music app, (f) the Google Podcasts app, and (g) the Spotify app;
`
`(iii) the design and operation of the aforementioned “Stream
`Transfer” Accused Functionality relating to, and source code that
`facilitates the same for, each of: (a) the YouTube app, (b) the
`YouTube Music app, (c) the Google Play Music app, (d) the Google
`Podcasts app, and (e) the Spotify app;
`
`(iv) the design and operation of a Cast-Enabled Media Player
`receiving and playing a sequence of media items (e.g., songs, videos,
`podcast episodes, etc.), individually and collectively with one or more
`other Cast-Enabled Media Players, in connection with, and source
`code that facilitates the same for, each of: (a) the YouTube media
`service, (b) the YouTube Kids media service, (c) the YouTube Music
`media service, (d) the YouTube TV media service, (e) the Google
`Play Music media service, (f) the Google Podcasts media service, and
`(g) the Spotify media service;
`
`(v) the design and operation of a computer device, such as a Pixel
`device, receiving and playing a sequence of media items (e.g., songs,
`videos, podcast episodes, etc.) in connection with, and source code
`that facilitates the same for, each of: (a) the YouTube media service,
`(b) the YouTube Kids media service, (c) the YouTube Music media
`service, (d) the YouTube TV media service, (e) the Google Play
`Music media service, (f) the Google Podcasts media service, and (g)
`the Spotify media service;
`
`(vi) the design and operation of the aforementioned “Up Next”
`Accused Functionality relating to, and source code that facilitates the
`same for, each of: (a) the YouTube app, (b) the YouTube Kids app,
`(c) the YouTube Music app, (d) the YouTube TV app, (e) the Google
`Play Music app, and (f) the Google Podcasts app; and
`
`(vii) the design and operation of the aforementioned “Autoplay”
`Accused Functionality relating to, and source code that facilitates the
`same for, each of: (a) the YouTube app, (b) the YouTube Kids app,
`(c) the YouTube Music app, (d) the YouTube TV app, (e) the Google
`Play Music app, and (f) the Google Podcasts app.
`
`Sonos argues that Google failed to designate a witness for some portions of Topic No. 1. It also
`
`contends that Google produced a witness who was not competent to testify on certain topics. In
`
`addition to responding to these arguments, Google asserts that Topic No. 1 contains excessive
`
`3
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 495 Filed 02/14/23 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`subtopics that amount to separate subject matters in violation of Judge Alsup’s order. The court
`
`addresses this argument first before turning to the remaining disputes.
`
`1.
`
`Dispute One: Whether Topic No. 1 Subtopics Violate Limits Set By
`Judge Alsup
`
`Google objects that Sonos seeks to compel testimony on Topic No. 1 for at least 20
`
`different subject matters in violation of the court’s order. Jt. Letter 3. Pursuant to Judge Alsup’s
`
`Supplemental Order to Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference in Civil Cases, parties
`
`may seek Rule 30(b)(6) depositions “on up to a total of ten subject matters (for the entire case)
`
`described with ‘reasonable particularity’” absent a prior order. Supplemental Order ¶ 32(a).
`
`Google argues that Sonos’s motion is an “attempted end run around the Court’s rule” and that it
`
`has already designated four separate witnesses to testify “on the relevant subject matter of Topic
`
`No. 1 (and its many sub-topics).” Google asks the court to preclude Sonos from asking for
`
`additional testimony “on even more subtopics.” Jt. Letter 3.
`
`In response, Sonos disputes that the Topic No. 1 subparts amount to 20 separate subject
`
`matters because Topic No. 1 covers “the functionality of the accused products.” Sonos argues that
`
`it used the subtopics to “articulate and distinguish within the topic certain discrete functional
`
`aspects to aid Google in designating witnesses” and to comply with the requirement that topics be
`
`described with “reasonable particularity.” Id. at 2. Sonos also contends that Google has waived
`
`this argument because it referred to Topic No. 1 as a single subject in the parties’ meet and confer
`
`process and designated witnesses to testify on each of the subparts without raising this concern.
`
`Id. at 2-3, n.6.
`
`Google does not flesh out its objection in any detail or cite any supporting authority. It
`
`also fails to respond to Sonos’s contention that it waived this objection by previously designating
`
`witnesses in response to the Topic No. 1 subparts. The court finds that Google has waived any
`
`objection based on the existence of subtopics. In any event, the subparts fall under the subject
`
`matter of Topic No. 1, namely, the design and operation of the accused functionalities, and help to
`
`define the scope of that subject matter with reasonable particularity.
`
`4
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 495 Filed 02/14/23 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`2.
`
` Dispute Two: Topic No. 1(i)
`
`Topic No. 1(i) is “the design and operation of the . . . ‘speaker group’ Accused
`
`Functionality and source code that facilitates the same.” The notice defines the relevant
`
`functionality as “[a]ny and all functionalities that facilitate creating a ‘speaker group’ using the
`
`Google Home app and playing media (e.g., music) from the speaker group, where the term
`
`‘speaker group’ has the meaning used by Google.”
`
`Sonos raises three issues with Google’s production of a witness to testify on this subject.
`
`First, it argues that this topic seeks testimony on two separate points: 1) creating a “speaker group”
`
`using the Google Home app and 2) playing media from the speaker group from the Google Home
`
`app “as well as other accused apps.” Jt. Letter 1. According to Sonos, Google improperly limited
`
`this topic to the Google Home app, and witness Justin Pedro did not testify on the issue of
`
`“playing music from speaker groups via other apps.” Id. (emphasis added). Sonos argues that the
`
`functionality of other accused mobile apps is articulated in its infringement contentions for the
`
`‘966 patent.
`
`In response, Google contends that the topic and definition of the relevant functionality only
`
`identifies the Google Home app. It argues that Pedro was prepared to, and did testify, about the
`
`topic as written. Jt. Letter 3-4, n.9.
`
`Google has the better argument. Sonos asserts Topic No. 1(i) includes “playing media
`
`from the speaker group from the Google Home app as well as other accused apps.” Jt. Letter 1
`
`(emphasis added). Not so. The topic identifies the “‘speaker group’ Accused Functionality”; the
`
`corresponding definition of that functionality includes only the Google Home app.2 Sonos may
`
`not re-write the topic and its corresponding definition. This portion of the motion to compel is
`
`denied.
`
`Second, Sonos contends that during Pedro’s deposition, “Google withdrew the Google
`
`Home app designation as to playing media from a speaker group and repeatedly objected to
`
`questions regarding such Google Home app functionality.” Jt. Letter 1. Sonos complains that
`
`
`2 Notably, subsection (i) of Topic No. 1 is different from subsections (ii) through (vii) which cite
`multiple apps, not just the Google Home app.
`
`5
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 495 Filed 02/14/23 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`Pedro was not prepared “on this aspect.” Jt. Letter 1. Google denies that it “withdrew the Google
`
`Home app designation as to playing media from a speaker group” and contends that Pedro testified
`
`for over five hours regarding the functionality of the Google Home app, including playing media
`
`using a speaker group. Google argues that Pedro was prepared to give complete, knowledgeable,
`
`and binding answers on the subject matter for which he was designated. Id. at 4.
`
`Sonos does not identify any particular questions to which Google objected. It also does
`
`not cite deposition testimony illustrating Pedro’s lack of preparation. See id. at 1. Accordingly,
`
`Sonos has failed to establish that Pedro was not adequately prepared for questioning about the
`
`Google Home app functionality. The motion to compel is denied on this point.
`
`Finally, Sonos contends that Pedro was not prepared to testify about the source code. Id. at
`
`1 n.4. Source code is clearly part of Topic No. 1(i) (“and source code that facilitates the same”).
`
`Google does not respond to this argument and thus concedes it. Accordingly, Sonos’s motion to
`
`compel Google to designate and produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify on the subject of
`
`“source code that facilitates” the “design and operation of the . . . ‘speaker group’ Accused
`
`Functionality,” as that term is defined in the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, is granted.
`
`3.
`
`Disputes Three and Four: Controller Device and Cast-Enabled Player
`Topics
`
`Sonos challenges the sufficiency of the designated witness’s testimony with respect to the
`
`“controller device” and “cast-enabled player” topics pertaining to the “Up Next” and “Autoplay”
`
`functionalities. Jt. Letter 2. These are topics 1(v)(a)-(d); 1(vi)(a)-(d); 1(vii)(a)-(d); 1(vi)(b), (d);
`
`and 1(vii)(b), (d), as follows:
`
`(v) the design and operation of a computer device, such as a Pixel
`device, receiving and playing a sequence of media items (e.g., songs,
`videos, podcast episodes, etc.) in connection with, and source code
`that facilitates the same for, each of: (a) the YouTube media service,
`(b) the YouTube Kids media service, (c) the YouTube Music media
`service, [and] (d) the YouTube TV media service . . .
`
`(vi) the design and operation of the aforementioned “Up Next”
`Accused Functionality relating to, and source code that facilitates the
`same for, each of: (a) the YouTube app, (b) the YouTube Kids app,
`(c) the YouTube Music app, [and] (d) the YouTube TV app . . .
`
`(vii) the design and operation of the aforementioned “Autoplay”
`Accused Functionality relating to, and source code that facilitates the
`
`6
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 495 Filed 02/14/23 Page 7 of 11
`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 495 Filed 02/14/23 Page 7 of 11
`
`same for, each of: (a) the YouTube app, (b) the YouTube Kids app,
`(c) the YouTube Music app, [and] (d) the YouTube TV app ....
`
`Sonosargues that the designated witness on the “controller device and cast-enabled player
`
`topics (including ‘up next’ and ‘autoplay’ functionality)” was not competentto testify. Jt. Letter
`
`2. Google responds that the topics were overbroad andthat its designee, Mr. Mo,testified “at a
`
`reasonable level of detail.” Jd. at 5. The parties provided very little analysis of this issue in the
`
`joint letter. Accordingly, the court ordered the parties to file a supplementaljoint letter addressing
`
`each of the two topics separately. It ordered Google to “explain why its designee’s testimony was
`
`‘at a reasonable level of detail’” and Sonos to explain whythe testimony wasinsufficient. The
`
`court also instructed the parties to jointly file one exhibit with all relevant portions ofthe
`
`transcript. [Docket No. 414.]
`
`In the supplementaljoint letter, Sonos describes the two topics as: 1) how the accused
`
`controller devices—e.g., phones—operate to play back media items such as songs in a queuevia
`
`the accused apps (YouTube, YouTube Music), including the operation of Google’s features called
`
`“Up Next” and “Autoplay”; and 2) how the accused players—e.g., smart speakers—engagein the
`
`“Up Next” and “Autoplay” features. Supp. Jt. Letter 1. Google does not dispute the accuracy of
`
`these descriptions.
`
`Sonos highlights a significant number of basic questions to which Mo responded “I don’t
`
`know”or words to that effect. See id. at Ex. 1 (Tr.). Mo was not adequately prepared to answer
`
`many questions that appear related to Up Next and Autoplay features on the controller devices and
`
`players. For example,hetestified that he was notable to testify about how the “up nextfeature is
`
`implemented in Google’s system”(Tr. 24); that he was not familiar with how the Autoplay feature
`
`is implemented on the YouTube app on a phonebefore casting (Tr. 26-28); that he does not know
`
`whether a local queue of media items is stored on a device (Tr. 52-53); that he was not familiar
`
` with
`
`” (Tr. 69); and that he was
`
`not familiar with‘yyfor YouTube music (Tr. 72). Additionally, Mo
`
`could not explain references to the Up Next and Autoplay features in Google’s own documents
`
`(Tr. 65-66, 76, 79). At times, Mo becameactively resistant to Sonos’s questioning. For example,
`
`he repeatedly asked for clarification and context for questions that appeared fairly straightforward,
`
`7
`
`OA&WwNO
`OoOoNANDD
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 495 Filed 02/14/23 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`including “have you heard the phrase ‘local queue’ before?” in the “context of the YouTube
`
`sender” device. Tr. 51-52. In another instance, when asked, “[a] user [of the YouTube app
`
`running on sender] could select a single video to watch; correct?” he answered, “I don’t know
`
`what a user could do.” Tr. 47-48.
`
`In response, Google highlights portions of the transcript where Mo provided substantive
`
`testimony on these topics. Id. at 2; see e.g., Tr. 126-28, 144-45, 166-72, 174-76. While it appears
`
`that Mo offered some level of knowledgeable testimony about playlists and shared queues, Google
`
`does not address how this testimony was “at a reasonable level of detail.” Specifically, Google
`
`does not explain how the highlighted testimony adequately covered all the topics for which Mo
`
`was designated. Google also argues that Sonos offered “cherry-picked examples” that show that
`
`its counsel “asked vague, abstract questions about Autoplay and Up Next” that Mo had difficulty
`
`answering. Google did not make vagueness objections to all of the questions that the designee
`
`was unable to answer, thereby waiving any objection to those questions on that ground. Having
`
`reviewed the transcript, the court concludes that the questions generally were appropriate and
`
`concrete. Google further contends that “Sonos’s complaints about testimony over issues like local
`
`and cloud queues are unfair because these were hotly contested claim terms for construction.”
`
`Supp. Jt. Letter 2. This argument is not persuasive because Google did not object to questions
`
`about local and cloud queues based on disputes about construction, nor does it illustrate this
`
`objection with reference to particular questions and testimony.
`
`Ultimately, having reviewed the excerpts of the transcript that the parties jointly submitted,
`
`the court finds that there were clear gaps in Mo’s ability to provide 30(b)6) testimony on Google’s
`
`behalf with respect to the noticed topics and that he was adequately prepared to testify. Google
`
`has not shown that there were obvious deficiencies in the form or substance of Sonos’s questions.
`
`Google offered to designate additional testimony by Google engineers “Mills” and “Nicholson” on
`
`the subject of Autoplay as 30(b)(6) “to resolve the dispute.” Supp. Jt. Letter 2. The parties shall
`
`immediately meet and confer regarding Google’s designation of additional testimony by these
`
`witnesses on Autoplay. To the extent that there are remaining portions of the controller devices
`
`and cast-enabled player topics for which Google has not offered adequate 30(b)(6) testimony, it
`
`8
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 495 Filed 02/14/23 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`must promptly produce a witness on those topics.
`
`B.
`
`Dispute Five: Interrogatory No. 14
`
`Sonos moves to compel Google to provide a complete response to Interrogatory No. 14,
`
`which states in relevant part:
`
`For each Accused Cast-Enabled App, describe in detail how the given
`Accused Cast-Enabled App (e.g., YouTube Music, YouTube, Google
`Play Music, Google Podcasts, Spotify) running on a computing
`device (e.g., an Accused Pixel Device, an Accused Cast-Enabled
`Display, or a third party mobile phone or tablet), independently or
`working with other software on the computing device, enables a user
`to “cast,” or otherwise move or transfer media, to an Accused Cast-
`Enabled Media Player . . .
`
`
`Interrogatory No. 14 (emphasis added). Sonos argues that Google’s response does not provide an
`
`answer as to its accused displays, and that Google has improperly limited its response to apps that
`
`run on mobile devices even though the interrogatory is not so limited. Jt. Letter 3.
`
`Google contends that the interrogatory “does not ask Google to describe how ‘an Accused
`
`Cast-Enabled Display . . . casts or otherwise transfers media to another Accused Cast-Enabled
`
`Media Player.’” Id. at 5. Instead, it argues, the interrogatory asks Google to describe how “each
`
`Accused Cast-Enabled App” enables casting. Google contends that it has provided “a detailed
`
`explanation of how the YouTube apps perform casting.” Id.
`
`Sonos challenges two aspects of the response. It correctly asserts that Google fails to
`
`answer the interrogatory as to its accused displays. Google’s response is entirely silent as to Cast-
`
`Enabled Apps running on “an Accused Cast-Enabled Display,” and addresses only Cast-Enabled
`
`Apps running on a phone. Google argues that it “has provided . . . a detailed explanation of how
`
`the accused YouTube apps perform casting,” which is “exactly” what the interrogatory asks, see
`
`Jt. Letter 5, but this reads out a portion of the interrogatory. As written, the interrogatory asks
`
`Google to describe how each Accused Cast-Enabled App running on computing devices, which
`
`include mobile phones and “an Accused Cast-Enabled Display,” enables casting. A complete
`
`response calls for Google to explain how each Accused Cast-Enabled App performs casting, going
`
`accused app-by-app and accused computing device-by-computing device. Google offers no
`
`explanation or argument to support a different interpretation of the interrogatory. Its response is
`
`9
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 495 Filed 02/14/23 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`incomplete.
`
`Sonos also challenges Google’s response on the ground that it is improperly limited to the
`
`YouTube and YouTube Music apps. The interrogatory lists five “Accused Cast-Enabled Apps”:
`
`YouTube Music, YouTube, Google Play Music, Google Podcasts, and Spotify. Google objected
`
`to the inclusion of Google Podcasts and Spotify on the ground that “Sonos has dropped Google
`
`Podcasts and Spotify from the case.” Jt. Letter 5 n.17; 3d Supp. Responses at 14. Its response
`
`addresses only YouTube Music and YouTube. Google states that it “has been found not to
`
`infringe Google Play Music, so the only remaining apps are YouTube and YouTube Music.” Jt.
`
`Letter 5 n.17. Sonos does not actually dispute that YouTube and YouTube Music are “the only
`
`remaining apps” at issue but asserts that “[t]here’s been no noninfringement ruling concerning the
`
`‘033 patent.” Id. at 3. Its assertion about the ‘033 patent is not germane to the dispute because
`
`Sonos’s November 2022 infringement chart for the ‘033 patent does not accuse Google Play
`
`Music of infringing the ‘033 patent. [See Docket No. 406-2 at 1.] Further, on August 2, 2022, the
`
`court granted Google’s motion for partial summary judgment as to the ‘615 patent and held that
`
`“Google’s products” do not infringe claim 13 of the ‘615 patent. [Docket No. 316 at 10-11.]
`
`Thus, Google Play Music is no longer at issue with respect to the ‘033 or ‘615 patents, and Sonos
`
`does not explain how the requested information as to Google Play Music is relevant to any other
`
`patent-in-suit. Nor does it explain why Google should supplement its response as to Google
`
`Podcasts and Spotify. Accordingly, Sonos has failed to demonstrate how the information sought
`
`in Interrogatory No. 14 as to Google Play Music, Google Podcasts, and Spotify is relevant to the
`
`claims and defenses in this case.
`
`In sum, Google’s response to Interrogatory No. 14 is incomplete in that it does not address
`
`accused cast-enabled apps YouTube Music and YouTube running on any “Accused Cast-Enabled
`
`Display.” Sonos’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 14 is granted in part,
`
`consistent with the discussion above.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Sonos’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.
`
`Google must designate and promptly produce Rule 30(b)(6) witness(es) to testify about:
`
`10
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 495 Filed 02/14/23 Page 11 of 11
`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 495 Filed 02/14/23 Page 11 of 11
`
`e
`
`“source codethat facilitates” the “design and operation ofthe .
`
`.
`
`. ‘speaker group’ Accused
`
`Functionality” (Topic 1(i)), as that term is defined in the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice;
`
`and
`
`e
`
`the controller device and cast-enabled player topics pertaining to the Up Next and
`
`Autoplay functionalities. The parties shall immediately meet and confer with respect to
`
`Google’s designation of additional Rule 30(b)(6) testimony and/or witnesses on the
`
`controller device and cast-enabled player topics.
`
`The motionis also granted in part as to Interrogatory No. 14. Within seven days of the
`
`date of this order, Google shall serve a third supplemental response that addresses how YouTube
`
`Music and YouTube running on any “Accused Cast-Enabled Display” each enable casting, going
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`accused app-by-app and accused computing device-by-computing device.
`
`Dated: February 14, 2023
`
`11
`
`—CoOoYNDneeWYNY
`
`NOPONYNYWNNYKNNNROwmmmtmtetetoOoNANDonWW&-WNeF&ODODOOWJNDBO&—WoNYOKFCO
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`