Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 832 Filed 11/18/20 PageID.39921 Page 1 of 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No.: 17CV183 CAB (BGS)
`
`ORDER SETTING REMAINING
`DISCOVERY DEADLINES AS TO
`’305 PATENT
`
`[ECF 820, 822]
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL. S.R.O.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`Discovery as to the ‘305 Patent was stayed from May 7, 2018 to July 23, 2020.
`(ECF 251, 802.) After the stay was lifted, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint
`discovery plan to address completion of discovery. (ECF 811.) The parties submitted
`competing proposals, however they only addressed completion of written discovery.
`(ECF 813.) The Court already set the deadlines below based on the proposals previously
`filed:
`
`Event related to the ’305 Patent
`Eset to complete supplemental responses to technical
`interrogatories
`Eset to provide:
`• Supplemental source code
`• Supplemental production of technical documents
`• Supplemental financial documents
`
`Deadline
`October 19, 2020
`
`November 9, 2020
`
`1
`
`17CV183 CAB (BGS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 832 Filed 11/18/20 PageID.39922 Page 2 of 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
`
`• Supplemental responses to financial interrogatories
`and interrogatory nos. 6, 10, and 12
`
`
`Finjan to provide:
`• Responses to Supplemental interrogatories, including,
`financial, prior art, and reduction to practice,
`specifically nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18,
`19, 21, 23
`Finjan to provide supplemental infringement contentions
`Last day to serve additional written discovery requests1
`Eset to provide:
`• Supplemental invalidity contentions
`• Supplemental election of prior art
`
`
`
`November 18, 2020
`November 25, 2020
`December 14, 2020
`
`
`The Order setting these deadlines also required the parties to provide an updated
`joint discovery plan that proposed a schedule to complete the remaining discovery as to
`the ‘305 Patent.
`The parties have again submitted competing proposals for the completion of
`discovery. (ECF 820.) In summary, Eset argues a longer schedule is appropriate
`because: (1) the depositions of the two inventors on the ‘305 Patent will require
`utilization of the Hague Convention because the deponents are in Israel; (2) Finjan was
`recently acquired by Fortress Investment Group, LLC, requiring additional discovery; (3)
`even being conducted remotely, there may be significant challenges in conducting
`depositions given COVID-19 travel restrictions, time zone differences, and restrictions on
`access to source code that may make remote depositions on the source code challenging;
`
`
`1 In setting this deadline, the Court is not necessarily authorizing new discovery requests
`as a general matter or approving either party delaying discovery requests to this deadline.
`The Court recognizes fact discovery was ongoing when the case was stayed however, as
`would always be the case, the parties should initiate discovery as soon as possible and
`responsive discovery should not be cumulative of discovery already provided.
`
`2
`
`17CV183 CAB (BGS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 832 Filed 11/18/20 PageID.39923 Page 3 of 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
`
`
`(4) possible delays in access to source code given Eset’s Slovakian headquarters are
`closed and employees are working from home as a result of rising COVID-19 cases; and
`(5) anticipated delays resulting from COVID-19 restrictions. Finjan proposes a shorter
`schedule, arguing it should be expedited because it only addresses one patent, depositions
`can be conducted remotely, including those dealing with source code, there is no need for
`discovery regarding Finjan’s acquisition, and Eset should not be deposing the inventors
`are the ‘305 Patent.
`Having considered the parties arguments,2 the Court sets the following deadlines
`for the remainder of discovery.
`Event related to the ’305 Patent
`Close of fact discovery
`
`Deadline
`January 20, 2021
`
`Opening Expert Reports
`
`Rebuttal Expert Reports
`
`Close of expert discovery
`
`February 8, 2021
`
`February 26, 2021
`
`March 12, 2021
`
`
`In setting these deadlines, the Court is not precluding the parties from seeking
`extensions as circumstances warrant, particularly those related to COVID-19 restrictions.
`The Court recognizes that some of the concerns raised by Eset may result in the need for
`extension of these deadlines. However, instead of setting the schedule to accommodate
`issues that may arise, the Court expects the parties will proceed diligently to attempt to
`meet the deadlines, meet and confer when they cannot be met, and only seek extensions
`when the need for an extension arises. The Court also reminds the parties that any
`request should be supported by a declaration identifying the discovery that has been
`
`
`
`2 The Court is not resolving any of these disagreements and expects that the parties will
`timely raise any discovery disputes under the Chambers Rules as they arise.
`
`3
`
`17CV183 CAB (BGS)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 832 Filed 11/18/20 PageID.39924 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`completed, the discovery that remains, and explains why the current deadline cannot be
`met, (Chambers Rule V.C.), and otherwise complies with the Chambers Rules.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`Dated: November 19, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`4
`
`17CV183 CAB (BGS)
`
`