Case4:14-mc-80112-JSW Document17-3 Filed05/05/14 Page2 of 61
`
`Kirk R. Ruthenberg
`DC Bar No. 415520
`kirk.ruthenberg@dentons.com
`Mark L. Hogge
`DC Bar No. 404882
`mark.hogge@dentons.com
`Shailendra K. Maheshwari
`DC Bar No. 484966
`shailendra.maheshwari@dentons.com
`DENTONS US LLP
`301 K Street, NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 408-6400
`Facsimile: (202) 408-6399
`
`Sarah S. Eskandari
`CA Bar No. 271541
`sarah.eskandari@dentons.com
`DENTONS US LLP
`525 Market Street, 26th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 882-5000
`Facsimile: (415) 882-0300
`
`Attorneys for Third Party
`WaveMarket, Inc. d/b/a Location Labs
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`
`No. 1:12-cv-1701-RGA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`AT&T INC., AT&T MOBILITY,
`LLC, AND GOOGLE, Inc.,
`
`WAVEMARKET, INC., d/b/a
`LOCATION LABS' OBJECTIONS AND
`RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
`SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A
`DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF
`DOCUMENTS, ELECTRONICALLY
`STORED INFORMATION, OR
`TANGIBLE THINGS IN A CIVIL
`ACTION
`
`Defendants.
`
`-1-
`
`LOCATION LABS' OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
`
`Case No. 1:12-CV-1701 (RGA)
`
`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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010
`
`

`
`Case4:14-mc-80112-JSW Document17-3 Filed05/05/14 Page3 of 61
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`WaveMarket, Inc., d/b/a Locations Labs (“LOCATION LABS”) hereby objects to Plaintiff,
`
`Callwave Communication’s ("PLAINTIFF") Subpoena To Testify at a Deposition and the
`
`Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, or Tangible Things In A Civil
`
`Action ("Plaintiff’s Subpoena"), which was served upon it on February 10, 2014, as follows:
`
`LOCATION LABS serves the following Objections and Responses within the 14 day
`
`time period provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B) and requests the opportunity to meet and
`
`confer with PLAINTIFF prior to the filing of any motion by PLAINTIFF seeking an order
`
`compelling production or inspection. The following Objections and Responses are based upon
`
`records and information reasonably available to LOCATIONS LABS as of the date of these
`
`Objections and Responses. LOCATIONS LABS responds to Plaintiff’s Subpoena based upon
`
`its current understanding and its objections as set forth herein are made without prejudice to its
`
`right to assert any additional objection or response. By responding to Plaintiff’s Subpoena,
`
`LOCATIONS LABS is not representing that documents or information responsive to Plaintiff's
`
`Subpoena exist. LOCATIONS LABS expressly reserves its right to rely on any further,
`
`additional, or different facts, documents or other evidence which may develop or come to its
`
`attention at a later time. Therefore, LOCATIONS LABS reserves the right, at any time, to
`
`revise, amend, correct, supplement, modify, or clarify its Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s
`
`Subpoena, or production made pursuant thereto.
`
`Nothing in these responses should be construed as waiving rights or objections that
`
`might otherwise be available to LOCATIONS LABS nor should LOCATIONS LABS' responses
`
`to any of these topics be deemed an admission of relevancy, materiality, or admissibility in
`
`evidence of the topic or the response thereto. LOCATIONS Labs' Objections and Responses are
`
`made without in any way waiving or intending to waive, but on the contrary preserving and
`
`intending to preserve: (1) all questions as to competency, relevancy, authenticity, materiality,
`
`privilege, and admissibility as evidence for any purpose of the Objections and Responses or
`
`subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceeding in or during the hearing of this matter; (2)
`-2-
`
`LOCATION LABS' OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
`
`Case No. 1:12-CV-1701 (RGA)
`
`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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010
`
`

`
`Case4:14-mc-80112-JSW Document17-3 Filed05/05/14 Page4 of 61
`
`the right to object on any ground to the use of said Objections and Responses, or the subject
`
`matter thereof, in any subsequent proceeding or in the hearing of this or any other matter; and
`
`(3) the right to object on any ground at any time to any other subpoenas, requests for production
`
`or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Subpoena.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`In addition to any specific objection which may be made on an individual basis in the
`
`Specific Objections and Responses below, LOCATION LABS makes the following General
`
`Objections, whether or not separately set forth in response to each of Plaintiff's Topics for
`
`Deposition (hereinafter "Topics") and Requests for Production (hereinafter "Requests"), to each
`
`and every instruction, definition, topic, and request made in Plaintiff's Subpoena. Nevertheless,
`
`the assertion of the same, similar, or additional objections in response to a specific Request or
`
`Topic does not waive, limit, or modify any of these General Objections. Likewise, any specific
`
`objection made by LOCATION LABS in no respect waives, limits, or modifies any General
`
`Objection. LOCATION LABS adopts and incorporates by reference the following General
`
`Objections into each of its specific objections to the Requests and Topics contained in Plaintiff’s
`
`Subpoena.
`
`A.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to each Request and Topic as overly broad, vague,
`
`compound, and to the extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or
`
`defenses asserted in this litigation or the subject matter of this litigation or that is not reasonably
`
`expected to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. LOCATION Labs' response shall not
`
`constitute an admission that the response is relevant and shall not waive LOCATION Labs' right
`
`to object to the admissibility of such response at any proceeding.
`
`B.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to each Request and Topic to the extent that they fail to
`
`describe with reasonable particularity the topics and requests for which information and
`
`documents are sought and specifically objects to the extent each Topic and Request is not
`
`reasonably limited in time, geographic region or scope.
`
`C.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff’s Subpoena to the extent it seeks to impose
`
`obligations beyond what is required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 34, and 45.
`-3-
`
`LOCATION LABS' OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
`
`Case No. 1:12-CV-1701 (RGA)
`
`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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010
`
`

`
`Case4:14-mc-80112-JSW Document17-3 Filed05/05/14 Page5 of 61
`
`D.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff’s Subpoena on the grounds that it imposes
`
`upon LOCATION LABS undue burden and expense, including without limitation, substantially
`
`disrupting and impairing LOCATION Labs' business operations, services to its customers, and
`
`diverting financial resources and time. Pursuant to Rule 45(d)(1) and Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii),
`
`LOCATION LABS requests that Plaintiff reimburse LOCATION LABS in advance for the
`
`costs of production, including reasonable attorneys fees. This includes without limitation the
`
`reasonable fees, costs and expenses incurred in connection with responding to the subpoena,
`
`including but not limited to LOCATION LABS' costs and expenses in locating, compiling and
`
`producing documents and things, reviewing for privilege and/or immunity from production, and
`
`in preparing any withheld document list. LOCATION LABS will not produce the requested
`
`information until the Plaintiff agrees to reimburse LOCATION LABS for the costs of
`
`production, including reasonable fees, or until Plaintiff obtains an Order pursuant to Rule
`
`45(d)(2)(B)(ii) compelling production by LOCATION LABS, which order “must protect a
`
`person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from significant expense resulting from
`
`compliance.” To the extent Plaintiff refuses to reimburse LOCATION LABS for its response to
`
`this Subpoena and to limit the Requests consistent with the Objections stated herein,
`
`LOCATION LABS reserves the right to seek an Order from the Court, pursuant to Rule
`
`45(d)(1), imposing upon the Plaintiff an appropriate sanction, including costs of production, lost
`
`earnings, and attorneys fees, for Plaintiff’s failure to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing
`
`undue burden or expense on the persons subject to the subpoena. LOCATION LABS further
`
`objects to the "Form of Production" set forth in Plaintiff's Subpoena on the grounds that it
`
`imposes upon LOCATION LABS undue burden and expense and is inconsistent with Rule
`
`45(d)1) and Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii).
`
`E.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff's Subpoena to the extent it seeks to impose
`
`on LOCATION LABS any obligations or responsibilities different from or in excess of those
`
`required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States District
`
`Court for the Northern District of California, Orders of the Court, or any other applicable law.
`
`LOCATION LABS' OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
`
`Case No. 1:12-CV-1701 (RGA)
`
`-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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010
`
`

`
`Case4:14-mc-80112-JSW Document17-3 Filed05/05/14 Page6 of 61
`
`F.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to the definitions and instructions contained in
`
`Plaintiff’s Subpoena to the extent they seek to impose on LOCATION LABS any obligations or
`
`responsibilities different from or in excess of those required by the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California, or any other applicable law. In particular,
`
`1)
`
`The terms “YOU,” OR “YOUR,” is defined to include “WaveMarket, Inc. d/b/a
`
`Location Labs," and "its affiliates, divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, employees,
`
`representatives, directors, officers, trustees, and attorneys, or any other Person or entity acting
`
`on behalf of the foregoing, directly or indirectly.” LOCATION LABS objects to this definition
`
`on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and
`
`LOCATION LABS will specifically limit its response to be that of LOCATION LABS, its
`
`officers and employees acting in their official capacities as authorized by LOCATION LABS.
`
`2)
`
`The terms "Plaintiff" or "Callwave" is defined to include "Callwave
`
`Communications, LLC," and "any of its past and present affiliates, operating divisions, parent
`
`corporations, subsidiaries, directors, officers, agents, employees, representatives, and all Persons
`
`acting on its behalf." LOCATION LABS objects to this definition on the grounds that it is
`
`vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and encompassing entities or persons
`
`of whom LOCATION LABS has no knowledge and/or with whom LOCATION LABS has had
`
`no dealings or transactions.
`
`3)
`
`The terms "Defendant" or "Defendants" is defined to include "Google, Inc., AT&T
`
`Mobility, LLC, Sprint Nextel Corp., T-Mobile USA, Inc. Verizon Communication, Inc. Cellco
`
`Partnership, d.b.a. Verizon Wireless, Blackberry Corp., and Blackberry Ltd, on an individual
`
`basis," and "any and all affiliates, divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, employees,
`
`representatives, directors, officers, trustees, and attorneys, or any other Person or entity acting
`
`on behalf of the foregoing, directly, or indirectly." LOCATION LABS objects to this definition
`
`on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome, and
`
`encompassing entities or persons of whom LOCATION LABS has no knowledge and/or with
`
`whom LOCATION LABS has had no dealings or transactions.
`-5-
`
`LOCATION LABS' OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
`
`Case No. 1:12-CV-1701 (RGA)
`
`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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010
`
`

`
`Case4:14-mc-80112-JSW Document17-3 Filed05/05/14 Page7 of 61
`
`4)
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the term “DOCUMENT(S)”
`
`to the extent it is broader than the definitions set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`LOCATION LABS further objects to this definition on the grounds that, when read in context
`
`with the Requests, the definition is overly broad and unduly burdensome and is not reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.
`
`5)
`
`LOCATION LABS further objects to Plaintiff’s definition of the terms "Prior Art,"
`
`“Accused Products," "YOUR Product(s)," "Technical Document(s)," and "Source Code," as
`
`overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous to the extent that the definitions include
`
`information or documents that are either irrelevant or not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence. LOCATION LABS further objects to Plaintiff's definition of
`
`“Accused Products" and "Your Product(s)" as vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome to the
`
`extent that it seeks to encompass products or services that are “substantially similar” to products
`
`or services that Callwave has specifically identified in the definitions and to the extent it seeks
`
`information about the products or services defined as Your Product(s), which are not accused in
`
`the Litigation and should not be subject to discovery in the Litigation.
`
`6)
`
`LOCATION LABS further objects to Plaintiff's definitions of the terms "Any,"
`
`“Person,” and "Vendor" as overbroad, vague and ambiguous to the extent that the definitions
`
`include information or documents that are either irrelevant or not reasonably calculated to lead
`
`to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`7)
`
`LOCATION LABS further objects to Plaintiff's definitions of the terms "AND" and
`
`"OR" to the extent they contradict the plain and ordinary meaning of these terms.
`
`G.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff’s Subpoena to the extent it seeks electronic
`
`documents or other electronically stored information (“ESI”) on the grounds that the request
`
`does not set any appropriate limits on the type of ESI sought and is overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`These Definitions, read in context with the Requests, would require an unwarranted,
`
`unreasonable and wasteful search of LOCATION Labs' entire computer system that would result
`
`largely in identifying computer records that are duplicative of other documents maintained by
`-6-
`
`LOCATION LABS' OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
`
`Case No. 1:12-CV-1701 (RGA)
`
`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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010
`
`

`
`Case4:14-mc-80112-JSW Document17-3 Filed05/05/14 Page8 of 61
`
`LOCATION LABS in the normal course of business, and would substantially disrupt and impair
`
`LOCATION LABS' ability to perform its business operations. LOCATION LABS reserves its
`
`rights not to provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources not reasonably
`
`accessible because of undue burden and cost.
`
`H.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff’s Subpoena to the extent it seeks documents
`
`and other materials protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product
`
`doctrine, or any other applicable privileges or doctrines. LOCATION LABS further states that
`
`no inadvertent production of any privileged document shall be deemed or construed to constitute
`
`a waiver, intentionally or otherwise, of its attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine
`
`protection, or any other privileges or doctrines protecting its communications, transactions, or
`
`records from disclosure, and therefore, any information produced by LOCATION LABS in a
`
`manner inconsistent with the foregoing is wholly inadvertent and by mistake and not a waiver of
`
`any such privileges or protections.
`
`I.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff’s Subpoena to the extent it seeks to obtain
`
`documents that contain or refer to any competitively sensitive information, confidential and/or
`
`trade secret information, or proprietary information relating to LOCATION LABS, disclosure of
`
`which to the parties to the Litigation or third parties could harm LOCATION LABS and/or its
`
`customers. LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff’s Subpoena to the extent it seeks confidential
`
`and proprietary information, including trade secrets and competitively sensitive business
`
`information, where any purported marginal benefits of production of the requested information
`
`are outweighed by the burden associated with producing such highly sensitive materials. As of
`
`the date of these Objections and Responses, no Protective Order has been entered in the above-
`
`captioned matter. Such documents will not be produced until they are appropriately protected
`
`from disclosure to or access by third parties or business personnel of Plaintiff, pursuant to the
`
`Protective Order entered in the Litigation or a further Protective Order if appropriate, and an
`
`agreement by Plaintiff that (a) LOCATION LABS may designate such documents as
`
`CONFIDENTIAL, CONFIDENTIAL OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY and RESTRICTED
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ‑ SOURCE CODE, or similar designation pursuant to a Protective Order
`-7-
`
`LOCATION LABS' OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
`
`Case No. 1:12-CV-1701 (RGA)
`
`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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010
`
`

`
`Case4:14-mc-80112-JSW Document17-3 Filed05/05/14 Page9 of 61
`
`entered in the litigation, (b) Plaintiff will not challenge LOCATION Labs' confidentiality
`
`designation pursuant to the Protective Order, and (c) Plaintiff will agree that, in addition to the
`
`restrictions set forth in the Protective Order, Plaintiff will not permit its in-house counsel, or any
`
`representative of Plaintiff other than counsel of record in this Action, to access any LOCATION
`
`LABS documents designated as CONFIDENTIAL, CONFIDENTIAL OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`
`ONLY or RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL ‑ SOURCE CODE. With the understanding that
`as of the date of these Objections and Responses a Protective Order that will include protections
`
`for Source Code is still being negotiated in the above-captioned matter, and the expectation that
`
`such a Protective Order will be entered, LOCATION LABS objects to the production of Source
`
`Code for the Accused Product until such a Protective Order is entered. Any Source Code
`
`beyond that for the Accused Product or a LOCATION LABS Product specifically at issue in the
`
`Litigation is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. Any Source Code produced for inspection must be appropriately protected from
`
`disclosure to or access by third parties or business personnel of Plaintiff, pursuant to a suitable
`
`Protective Order, and an agreement by Plaintiff that (a) LOCATION LABS may designate such
`
`documents pursuant to the highest designation intended for Source Code and (c) Plaintiff will
`
`not permit its in-house counsel, or any representative of Plaintiff other than counsel of record in
`
`this Action, to access any LOCATION LABS documents designated pursuant to the
`
`confidentiality designation for Source Code.
`
`J.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff’s Subpoena to the extent that it seeks
`
`confidential, proprietary or trade secret information of third parties or information that is the
`
`subject of confidentiality and/or nondisclosure obligations that LOCATION LABS has with
`
`respect to any third party.
`
`K.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff’s Subpoena to the extent it can be construed
`
`to include information and documents outside of LOCATION LABS’ possession, custody,
`
`and/or control.
`
`L.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff’s Subpoena to the extent it purports to
`
`require the production of “all” information or documents relating to various subjects on the
`-8-
`
`LOCATION LABS' OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
`
`Case No. 1:12-CV-1701 (RGA)
`
`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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010
`
`

`
`Case4:14-mc-80112-JSW Document17-3 Filed05/05/14 Page10 of 61
`
`grounds that such requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek materials that are
`
`neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In
`
`most cases, it simply is not possible to search for, ensure production of, and, where appropriate,
`
`log as privileged, “all” documents of any specific type or description, nor is it practical or
`
`possible to prepare a witness to testify about “all” known facts regarding a particular subject.
`
`M. LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff’s Subpoena to the extent it seeks documents
`
`and other materials already produced by the Defendants in the Litigation or that could be or have
`
`otherwise been obtained by Plaintiff, on the grounds that such documents and materials are
`
`equally available to Plaintiff, from other non-parties, or from public records (e.g., prosecution
`
`file histories, PTO proceedings or court proceedings). LOCATION LABS also objects to
`
`Plaintiff’s Subpoena to the extent that it purports to require LOCATION LABS to produce
`
`documents for inspection or copying at any location not agreed to by LOCATION LABS.
`
`N.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff’s Subpoena, including the request for the
`
`production of documents by March 7, 2014, as unduly burdensome, in that such a return date
`
`does not give LOCATION LABS sufficient time to meet and confer with Plaintiff to narrow the
`
`scope of the subpoena, search for and collect responsive documents, if any; review any such
`
`documents for privilege or immunity; and prepare a log of withheld documents. LOCATION
`
`LABS also objects to the “Place” set forth in the subpoena for the production of documents.
`
`LOCATION LABS does not agree to make source code available for inspection at the "Place"
`
`set forth in the subpoena.
`
`O.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff’s Subpoena on the grounds that it is
`
`premature and an improper attempt to circumvent the discovery rules governing Inter Partes
`
`Review in the United States Patent and Trademark Office which is applicable to United States
`
`Patent No. 6,771,970 ("the '970 patent"), which is at issue in the above-captioned matter. See
`
`Department of Commerce Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 157, 48761 (August 14, 2012) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42). LOCATION LABS
`
`notes that on November 27, 2013, LOCATION LABS submitted a petition to the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for Inter Partes Review (the "'970 Patent IPR") of the
`-9-
`
`LOCATION LABS' OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
`
`Case No. 1:12-CV-1701 (RGA)
`
`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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010
`
`

`
`Case4:14-mc-80112-JSW Document17-3 Filed05/05/14 Page11 of 61
`
`’970 patent and that any discovery in the IPR proceeding must be approved by a panel of the
`
`Patent Trademark and Appeal Board ("PTAB") and that PLAINTIFF is not permitted to seek
`
`discovery through a subpoena issued in connection with a pending United States District Court
`
`proceeding to which the Petitioner, such as LOCATION LABS is not a party, to seek discovery
`
`in support of the IPR proceeding. LOCATION LABS reserves the right to seek sanctions and
`
`other appropriate remedies for PLAINTIFF'S improper attempt to circumvent the discovery
`
`procedures relating to IPR proceedings.
`
`P.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to the Requests and Topics in Plaintiff's Subpoena as
`
`unreasonably burdensome, cumulative, unnecessary and needlessly redundant of each other or of
`
`other discovery propounded by Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter.
`
`Q.
`
`LOCATION LABS notes that it is not a party to the above-captioned matter and,
`
`accordingly, LOCATION LABS objects to the Requests and Topics in Plaintiff's Subpoena to
`
`the extent they require legal conclusions, expert opinion, analysis of prior art, construction of
`
`any terms of the patents-in-suit, interpretation of any of the allegations or defenses asserted in
`
`the above-captioned matter, or any other obligation applicable to a party to the above-captioned
`
`matter rather than a subpoenaed third-party.
`
`R.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to the date, place and time of the noticed deposition in
`
`Plaintiff's Subpoena. Any deposition must only go forward at a date, place and time that
`
`considers the availability and convenience of the witnesses and only upon a showing that such
`
`deposition is warranted.
`
`S.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff's Subpoena on the grounds that the burden
`
`of producing or educating a witness on the Topics outweighs the need, relevance, or benefit or
`
`the requested information. LOCATION LABS, a third party, objects to making witnesses
`
`available for deposition as the Topics identified are overbroad and unduly burdensome to the
`
`extent they call for information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent any of the topics are relevant, there are less
`
`expensive ways to obtain the information. The significant expense LOCATION LABS would
`
`incur in order to prepare and produce a witness for deposition in order to respond to the
`-10-
`
`LOCATION LABS' OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
`
`Case No. 1:12-CV-1701 (RGA)
`
`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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010
`
`

`
`Case4:14-mc-80112-JSW Document17-3 Filed05/05/14 Page12 of 61
`
`subpoena is unwarranted in light of the lack of relevance of the identified topics. Therefore, the
`
`production of any LOCATION LABS witness (assuming a showing that a deposition is
`
`warranted) will be contingent upon Plaintiff covering all the costs and expense associated with
`
`the burden of preparing for and appearing at a deposition.
`
`T.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to the Topics in Plaintiff's Subpoena on the basis of the
`
`provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii).
`
`U.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff's Subpoena to the extent it seeks to discover
`
`information on issues of willful, contributory or induced infringement as all claims pertaining
`
`thereto were dismissed by the Court pursuant to its Order of January 28, 2014 (C.A. No. 12-
`
`1703-RGA, D.I. 66).
`
`V.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to Plaintiff's Subpoena to the extent it seeks
`
`information not within the relevant time period for this litigation and not reasonably limited in
`
`time or scope, including without limitation, Plaintiff seeking information regarding LOCATION
`
`LABS' products or services sold or used before the earliest issue date of the relevant Patent-in-
`
`Suit. To the extent that the issue date of the Patent-in-Suit is more than six (6) years prior to the
`
`date that Plaintiff filed its Complaint, LOCATION LABS objects to the Requests on the grounds
`
`that they seek information not relevant to this litigation pursuant to paragraph 4(e) of the Default
`
`Standards in effect in the District of Delaware where the underlying litigation is pending.
`
`W.
`
`LOCATION LABS' responses are made solely for the purpose of this case. Each
`
`response is subject to all objections as to competency, relevance, materiality, propriety, and
`
`admissibility, each of which are expressly reserved and may be interposed at any other
`
`proceeding in this case or any other action. That LOCATION LABS has not lodged a particular
`
`written objection to one of Plaintiff's Requests, Topics, Instructions or Definitions does not
`
`constitute a concession that any of them are proper or reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible information.
`
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, LOCATION LABS may also state
`
`specific objections to the Request or Topic where appropriate, including objections that are not
`
`LOCATION LABS' OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
`
`Case No. 1:12-CV-1701 (RGA)
`
`-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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010
`
`

`
`Case4:14-mc-80112-JSW Document17-3 Filed05/05/14 Page13 of 61
`
`generally applicable to all Requests or Topics. By setting forth such specific objections,
`
`LOCATION LABS does not intend to limit or restrict the General Objections set forth above.
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
`
`LOCATION LABS incorporates by reference into each of its responses below, each and
`
`every one of its General Objections, as though fully set forth therein. LOCATION LABS will
`
`meet and confer with Plaintiff to discuss the appropriate scope of the Requests and Topics of
`
`Plaintiff's Subpoena. Subject to its General Objections, LOCATION LABS responds as follows:
`
`REQUEST NO. 1:
`
`All Documents that You consider to be Prior Art to the Patent-in-Suit.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:
`LOCATION LABS incorporates by reference herein each of its general objections.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to this Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it
`
`calls for documents neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence and to the extent it seeks documents not in LOCATION LABS' possession,
`
`custody, or control. LOCATION LABS objects to this Request on the grounds it is improper and
`
`neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the
`
`extent it seeks to elicit invalidity and/or non-infringement contentions, as well as positions on the
`
`construction of any claim term or phrase from a third party. LOCATION LABS is not a party to
`
`the above-captioned litigation and under no obligation to conduct analyses of prior art or the
`
`merits of the case. LOCATION LABS further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
`
`vague, ambiguous, and overly broad as to time and scope. LOCATION LABS further objects to
`
`this Request to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, joint defense privilege, common interest
`
`privilege, and any other applicable privileges or protections recognized by case law or conferred
`
`by statute. LOCATION LABS further objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal
`
`conclusion and/or seeks expert discovery.
`
`LOCATION LABS' OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA
`
`Case No. 1:12-CV-1701 (RGA)
`
`-12-
`
`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
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2010
`
`

`
`Case4:14-mc-80112-JSW Document17-3 Filed05/05/14 Page14 of 61
`
`REQUEST NO. 2:
`All Documents and Communications relating to any and all searches, investigations, or
`analyses You performed, or was performed on your behalf, concerning Prior Art to the Patent-in-
`Suit.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2:
`
`LOCATION LABS incorporates by reference herein each of its general objections.
`
`LOCATION LABS objects to this Request as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it
`
`calls for documents neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence and to the extent it seeks documents not in LOCATION LABS' possession,
`
`custody, or control. LOCATION LABS objects to this Request on the grounds it is improper and
`
`neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the
`
`extent it seeks to elicit invalidity and/or non-infringement contentions from a third party.
`
`LOCATION LABS is not a party to the above-captioned litigation and under no obligation to
`
`conduct analyses of prior art or the merits of the case, nor is LOCATION LABS engaged in
`
`communications with the litigants in the above-captioned matter regarding the merits of the case.
`
`LOCATION LABS further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and
`
`overly broad as to time and scope. LOCATION LABS further specifically objects to this Request
`
`as vague and ambiguous to the extent it fails to exactly define the terms “searches,”
`
`"investigations," and "analyses." LOCATION LABS further objects to this Request to the extent
`
`that it calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney
`
`work product doctrine, joint defense privilege, common interest privilege, and any other
`
`applicable privileges or protections recognized by case law or conferred by statute. LOCATION
`
`LABS further objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion and/or seeks
`
`expert discovery. LOCATION LABS further responds that in the '970 Patent IPR it has asserted
`
`certain prior art to the '970 patent as invalidating the '970 patent and other positions relating to the
`
`patentability, unenforceability, validity, infringement, level of ordinary skill in the art, or state of
`
`the art at the time of the invention of the Patent-in-Suit, that it has submitt