`
`
`
`‘
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONICWALL, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`
`ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES
`RE SONICWALL’S PATENT
`PORTFOLIO AND RESPONSES TO
`FINJAN’S REQUESTS FOR
`ADMISSION
`
`Re: Dkt. Nos. 276, 277
`
`
`
`On August 7, 2020, the parties filed joint discovery letter briefs regarding two discovery-
`
`related disputes: (1) SonicWall’s responses to Finjan’s Requests for Admission Nos. 17-19 and 22
`
`(Dkt. No. 276), and (2) SonicWall’s identification of its patent portfolio in its second supplemental
`
`initial disclosures served on the last day of fact discovery (Dkt. No. 277). Finjan seeks sanctions
`
`in the form of deemed admissions or further responses to its requests for admission, and striking
`
`SonicWall’s second supplemental initial disclosures with respect to its patent portfolio. The Court
`
`heard oral argument on the parties’ disputes on August 18, 2020. Dkt. No. 280.
`
`For the reasons stated on the record, the Court resolves these disputes as follows:
`
`With respect to SonicWall’s responses to Finjan’s requests for admission, the Court finds
`
`no violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 occurred. SonicWall’s objections and answers
`
`satisfy the requirements of Rule 36(a)(4) with respect to the requests at issue. No sanctions are
`
`warranted.
`
`With respect to SonicWall’s second supplemental initial disclosures, the Court finds that
`
`no violation of Rule 26(a) or (e) occurred. Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a party to provide a
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 281 Filed 08/18/20 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`description or a copy of documents that it may use to support a claim or defense. There is no
`
`dispute that SonicWall timely produced the documents at issue. The fact that SonicWall also
`
`separately identified those documents in a supplement to its initial disclosures on the last day of
`
`fact discovery does not create a violation of Rule 26(a) or (e) where none otherwise exists. No
`
`sanctions are warranted.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: August 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`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
`
`