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
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 503 Filed 08/23/19 Page 1 of 6
`
`MICHAEL A. SHERMAN (SBN 94783)
`masherman@stubbsalderton.com
`JEFFREY F. GERSH (SBN 87124)
`jgersh@stubbsalderton.com
`SANDEEP SETH (SBN 195914)
`sseth@ stubbsalderton.com
`WESLEY W. MONROE (SBN 149211)
`wmonroe@stubbsalderton.com
`STANLEY H. THOMPSON, JR. (SBN 198825)
`sthompson@stubbsalderton.com
`VIVIANA B. HEDRICK (SBN 239359)
`vhedrick@stubbsalderton.com
`STUBBS ALDERTON MARKILES, LLP
`15260 Ventura Boulevard, 20TH Floor
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`Telephone:
`(818) 444-4500
`Facsimile:
`(818) 444-4520
`
`Attorneys for PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`
`
`
`J. DAVID HADDEN (CSB No. 176148)
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`SAINA S. SHAMILOV (CSB No. 215636)
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`MELANIE L. MAYER (admitted pro hac vice)
`mmayer@fenwick.com
`TODD R. GREGORIAN (CSB No. 236096)
`tgregorian@fenwick.com
`RAVI R. RANGANATH (CSB No. 272981)
`rranganath@fenwick.com
`SHANNON E. TURNER (CSB No. 310121)
`sturner@fenwick.com
`CHIEH TUNG (CSB No. 318963)
`ctung@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`Silicon Valley Center
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone:
`650.988.8500
`Facsimile:
`650.938.5200
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF-SVK
`IN RE PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC, ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a
`Texas limited liability company, and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company
` Plaintiffs,
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF-SVK
`
`JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL TWITCH
`INTERACTIVE, INC. TO PROVIDE
`FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
`PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
`
`Trial Date: March 16, 2020
`
`v.
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. a Delaware
`corporation,
` Defendant.
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL
`TWITCH TO PROVIDE FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF-SVK
`CASE NO. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF-SVK
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 503 Filed 08/23/19 Page 2 of 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
`
`
`I.
`
`PERSONALWEB’S STATEMENT
`This case against Twitch is directed to HTTP caching using content-based identifiers.
`PersonalWeb accuses Twitch of using HTTP cache control headers such as max-age value and content-
`based ETags, in conjunction with other aspects of the HTTP protocol, to carry out the claimed method
`of controlling distribution of its webpage content to invalidate and revalidate the access rights of
`browsers. (See, e.g., FAC, Dkt. 13 at ¶¶ 42-52.) PersonalWeb is entitled to information regarding all
`the benefits to Twitch1 of using the accused HTTP cache control method to calculate damages.
`Nevertheless, Twitch has refused to provide data regarding infrastructure cost savings from its use of
`HTTP caching, data relating to lower web-page load times due to caching, or data relating to revenue
`increase or user-base increase through HTTP caching as a result of lower load times, despite repeated
`requests for the same, necessitating the Court’s intervention. This information is relevant to damages
`because the benefits from Twitch’s practice of HTTP cache control using content-based identifiers are
`factors to be considered under a Georgia-Pacific damages analysis. All of the documents sought in this
`motion to compel bear on these issues. Fact discovery closed on August 16, 2019. (Dkt. 491) The
`parties have met and conferred on these topics several times, most recently on August 19, 2019. The
`requests are attached as Exhibits 1-3.
`Documents regarding infrastructure cost savings from caching, lower web-page load
`times from caching, or revenue increase or user-base increase through caching as a result of lower
`load times. Twitch has refused to produce these documents that are necessary for PersonalWeb’s
`damages calculations. Twitch has not produced any of the following:
`
`• web analytics reflecting user tracking, web traffic, page loads, page load time, impressions
`or ad loads, daily active sessions, and average page load time (RFPs 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 33,
`34, 77, 78, 89, 110, 111);
`
`•
`
` web analytics reflecting number of users versus load time, revenue versus load time, or ad
`impressions versus load time (RFPs 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 33, 34, 77, 78, 89, 110, 111);
`
`•
`
` monitoring and tracking reports of impressions/time, session time/time, load time/time,
`
`
`1PersonalWeb is no longer pursuing its counterclaims against AWS on the basis of discovery
`
`and the Court’s Claim Construction (Dkt. 485) and is working on a stipulation to a final judgment.
`
`1
`
`JOINT STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL
`TWITCH TO PROVIDE FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF-SVK
`CASE NO. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF-SVK
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 503 Filed 08/23/19 Page 3 of 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
`
`
`revenue/time, and number of users/time (RFPs 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 33, 34, 77, 78, 89, 110,
`111).
`
`• native QuickBooks or NetSuite files from 2011-2019 (Mr. Cellini, Twitch’s financial
`witness, testified he could have run these reports, but did not.) (requested in at least RFPs
`7, 16, and 26);
`
`•
`
` a cost report listing vendors and transactions, particularly as they relate to infrastructure
`and bandwidth costs in the “tech service cost” COGS category (Mr. Cellini also testified he
`could have run this report, but did not.) (RFPs 12, 16, 26, 72, 112);
`
`• other documents that show the costs to transfer data to browsers or cost savings from
`caching (RFPs 12, 28, 33, 34, 43, 45, 62, 72, 112);
`
`• documents, web logs, user logs that reflect the number of HTTP 200 and 304 messages or
`data consumed thereto (RFPs 8, 78, 84, 85, 86, 93, 115); and
`
`• documents regarding comparisons made between using HTTP cache control using Content-
`Based ETags or Fingerprints, as compared to any other forms of cache-control (RFP 98).
`These metrics directly impact the Georgia-Pacific factors relating to the profitability, utility,
`and advantages of the patented technology over alternative solutions. They also directly prove the
`value and benefits to Twitch of using the patented technology. PersonalWeb would be unable to
`complete a damages estimate that reflects all of the value of the patent without access to these
`documents, therefore, the Court should compel their production.
`II.
`TWITCH’S STATEMENT
`PersonalWeb’s request for what it contends are infrastructure-related documents is an
`improper and belated attempt to serve document requests past the close of fact discovery.
`PersonalWeb could have—but did not—serve document requests for the broad categories of
`documents sought above. Instead, PersonalWeb waited until the eleventh hour to seek these
`documents under the guise that they are responsive to previously served requests. But the RFPs
`referenced in PersonalWeb’s bullet points 1-6 above do not support the categories of documents
`requested here. And even to the extent that these new categories of documents could conceivably fall
`within a previously served document request, the information sought is irrelevant and grossly out of
`
`
`2
`
`
`JOINT STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL
`TWITCH TO PROVIDE FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF-SVK
`CASE NO. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF-SVK
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 503 Filed 08/23/19 Page 4 of 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
`
`
`proportion to any need in the case. Further, Twitch has confirmed that it does not have or has already
`produced or agreed to produce documents responsive to bullet points 5, 7, and 8 above.
`As an initial matter, Twitch has already confirmed that it does not have documents in its
`possession, custody, or control that reflect the number of HTTP 200 and 304 messages or data
`consumed thereto from the relevant time period. PersonalWeb’s insistence on seeking the Court’s
`intervention despite Twitch’s representation that no such documents exist is nothing more than an
`attempt to drive up Twitch’s litigation costs. Moreover, to the extent that any “documents regarding
`comparisons made between using HTTP cache control using Content-Based ETags or Fingerprints, as
`compared to any other forms of cache-control” exist in Twitch’s possession, custody, or control,
`Twitch has already produced such documents. Twitch cannot produce additional documents it does
`not have. Littlefield v. NutriBullet, L.L.C., No. CV 16-6894 MWF (SSX), 2017 WL 10439692, at *3
`(C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017) (“[T]he court cannot order a party to produce documents that do not exist.
`A mere suspicion that additional documents must exist is an insufficient basis to grant
`a motion to compel.”).
`Next, PersonalWeb seeks broad categories of metrics, including web analytics reflecting user
`tracking, web traffic, page loads, page load time, impressions or ad loads, daily active sessions,
`average page load time, number of users versus load time, revenue versus load time, or ad
`impressions versus load time, and monitoring and tracking reports of impressions/time, session
`time/time, load time/time, revenue/time, and number of users/time. But none of the RFPs
`PersonalWeb cites request these metrics. The only request that could conceivably cover a portion of
`any of these metrics is RFP 8, which seeks documents summarizing Twitch’s “volume of website
`data traffic in terms of the number of HTTP messages, number of bytes, or both, sent with Content-
`Based ETags and/or Fingerprints during the Relevant Time Period.” Twitch, however, does not have
`documents in its possession, custody, or control that reflect the volume of website data traffic sent
`with content-based ETags or fingerprints during the relevant time period—which it stated in its
`response to RFP 8. To the extent PersonalWeb seeks metrics unrelated to Twitch’s use of content-
`based ETags or fingerprints, PersonalWeb has propounded no document requests seeking this
`information. Regardless, PersonalWeb’s requests for broad website metrics untethered to the accused
`
`
`3
`
`
`JOINT STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL
`TWITCH TO PROVIDE FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF-SVK
`CASE NO. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF-SVK
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 503 Filed 08/23/19 Page 5 of 6
`
`functionality of the twitch.tv website—namely, the use of content-based ETags or fingerprints—are
`not relevant to any claim or defense in this action and are not proportional to the needs of the case.
`Likewise, PersonalWeb’s request for “native QuickBooks or NetSuite files from 2011-2019”
`goes well beyond the scope of permissible discovery and is unduly intrusive. Because the patents-in-
`suit expired in 2016, Twitch provided PersonalWeb with its financial statements for the relevant time
`period of 2012-2016. Twitch has also provided a report of the transactions underlying the “tech
`service cost” expenses reflected in Twitch’s financial statements for 2015-2016 and will produce the
`same data for 2012-2014, to the extent such a report can be run for that time period. Twitch’s
`financial data outside of the 2012-2016 time period, particularly after the patents expired, is not
`relevant at all. PersonalWeb has not identified any financial information it seeks that Twitch has not
`otherwise provided or agreed to provide. Instead, PersonalWeb is asking for access to Twitch’s
`highly sensitive financial files as a fishing expedition. Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1072
`(9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) (“District courts need not condone the use of discovery to engage in
`‘fishing expedition[s].’”).
`Finally, PersonalWeb seeks “other documents that show the costs to transfer data to browsers
`or cost savings from caching.” Twitch’s financial statements and its technical service cost
`transactions provide all of the information necessary for PersonalWeb to ascertain “the costs to
`transfer data to browsers.” And, to the extent documents concerning “cost savings from caching”
`exist in Twitch’s possession, custody, or control, Twitch has produced such documents. Again,
`PersonalWeb does not articulate any basis for compelling Twitch to produce additional documents
`outside of what Twitch has already agreed to provide.
`
`Dated: August 23, 2019
`
`STUBBS, ALDERTON & MARKILES, LLP
`
`By: /s/ Sandeep Seth
`Michael A. Sherman
`Jeffrey F. Gersh
`Sandeep Seth
`Wesley W. Monroe
`Stanley H. Thompson
`Viviana Boero Hedrick
`Attorneys for PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`4
`
`JOINT STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL
`TWITCH TO PROVIDE FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF-SVK
`CASE NO. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF-SVK
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 503 Filed 08/23/19 Page 6 of 6
`
`Dated: August 23, 2019
`
`MACEIKO IP
`
`Theodore S. Maceiko (SBN 150211)
`ted@maceikoip.com
`MACEIKO IP
`420 2nd Street
`Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
`Telephone: (310) 545-3311
`Facsimile: (310) 545-3344
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a
`Texas limited liability company
`
`Dated: August 23, 2019
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`By: /s/ Melanie L. Mayer
`Melanie L. Mayer
`
`Attorneys for TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`JOINT STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL
`TWITCH TO PROVIDE FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF-SVK
`CASE NO. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF-SVK
`
`