Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 327 Filed 12/13/18 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC, ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
`Case No. 18-md-02834-BLF (SVK)
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-00767- BLF (SVK)
`
`ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’
`DISCOVERY DISPUTE RELATING
`TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 320
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is the Parties’ December 11, 2018 discovery dispute in which
`
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level 3 Communications, LLC (collectively
`
`“PersonalWeb”) seek to compel Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (collectively
`
`“Amazon”) to produce discovery responses related to Amazon’s indemnification of its customers.
`
`ECF 320. PersonalWeb specifically seeks an order compelling Amazon to produce a 30(b)(6)
`
`witness on indemnification topics by December 21, 2018, and to serve its responses to
`
`PersonalWeb’s December 7, 2018 interrogatories and requests for admission by December 18,
`
`2018. ECF 323. PersonalWeb additionally requests that the Court extend the deadline for
`
`discovery disputes regarding those two issues. Id. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court
`
`finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument.
`
`Under Rule 26(b), a party “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
`
`is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 26(b)(1). The Court therefore balances “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.” Id. Here, the discovery that PersonalWeb seeks
`
`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 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 327 Filed 12/13/18 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`goes to a central issue in the case—the scope of Amazon’s indemnity obligations to its customers
`
`and whether those obligations support privity and thus collateral estoppel. Indeed, Amazon’s own
`
`motion for summary judgement demonstrates the relevance of the indemnity issue. See ECF 315
`
`at 9.
`
`Amazon argues that PersonalWeb actually seeks discovery regarding Amazon’s position
`
`on a disputed legal issue. ECF 320 at 4. While the Parties do dispute the scope of indemnification
`
`necessary to satisfy privity, the Parties also dispute the facts underlying the scope of Amazon’s
`
`indemnity obligations to its customers. PesonalWeb is entitled to discovery regarding those facts
`
`for the purposes of opposing Amazon’s motion for summary judgment. As a result, Amazon must
`
`produce discovery regarding the facts that form the basis of its indemnity obligations to its
`
`customers.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
`
`1. By December 21, 2018, Amazon is to produce a 30(b)(6) witness on the topics identified
`
`by PersonalWeb in its 30(b)(6) notice under the heading “Indemnification,” and the topics
`
`identified by PersonalWeb in the December 11 statement, to the extent those topics are not
`
`covered by the 30(b)(6) notice. See ECF 320-1 at 26-33; ECF 320 at 2–3.
`
`2. PersonalWeb may raise a discovery dispute related only to the deposition of Amazon’s
`
`30(b)(6) indemnification witness by January 2, 2019. The Court will not consider
`
`discovery disputes outside this limited scope. The Court advises the Parties that it will be
`
`unavailable December 24, 2018–January 1, 2019.
`
`3. The Court the denies PersonalWeb’s request to expedite Amazon’s responses to the
`
`December 7, 2018 interrogatories and requests for admission. PersonalWeb fails to offer a
`
`reason for its delay in serving its December 7, 2018 interrogatories and requests for
`
`admission, and PersonalWeb will still receive Amazon’s responses prior to PersonalWeb’s
`
`January 9, 2019 deadline to file its opposition to Amazon’s motion for summary judgment.
`
`////
`
`////
`
`////
`
`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 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 327 Filed 12/13/18 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`4. The Court denies PersonalWeb’s request to extend the deadline to file a discovery dispute
`
`related to Amazon’s responses to its December 7, 2018 interrogatories and requests for
`
`admission.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 13, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUSAN VAN KEULEN
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`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
`
`