Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 1 of 19
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09-cv-01827
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`WESTERNGECO L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES, INC.’S
`RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S DOCUMENT SUBPOENA
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and all other applicable laws and rules, Petroleum Geo-
`
`Services, Inc. hereby submits the following objections and responses to the subpoena served upon
`
`it on January 22, 2010 by Plaintiff WesternGeco L.L.C. (“WesternGeco”).
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`WesternGeco, a party to litigation pending in the United States District Court for the
`
`Southern District of Texas, has served Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., a non-party, with a Subpoena
`
`Duces Tecum (the “Subpoena”). The Subpoena seeks the production of documents related to,
`
`among other things, products and services purchased or licensed from ION Geophysical
`
`Corporation (“ION”), a Defendant in the pending litigation. Although all this information could be
`
`obtained directly from ION, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. (“PGS, Inc.”), subject to the objections
`
`set forth below, will produce certain responsive documents that reflect marketing activities of ION,
`
`to the extent such documents can be located with a reasonable search.
`
`137399.01/1925.14200
`
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 1
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 2 of 19
`
`In addition to the ION-related documents, WesternGeco also seeks other information from
`
`PGS, Inc. that is not limited to ION-related products, and that has little relevance, if any, to its
`
`pending lawsuit with ION. Essentially, WesternGeco seeks every document in PGS, Inc.’s
`
`possession that relates to Streamer Control Devices, regardless of whether such devices originate
`
`from ION. WesternGeco is a direct competitor of PGS, Inc. This discovery sought by
`
`WesternGeco is nothing more than a fishing expedition by WesternGeco to probe into the business
`
`of PGS, Inc. To the extent that such discovery is at all relevant, it is substantially outweighed by
`
`the potential harm and burden placed on non-party, PGS, Inc. For that reason, PGS, Inc. objects to
`
`the Subpoena, and will produce only documents related to communications with ION.
`
`In addition, WesternGeco requests that PGS, Inc. produce documents from the files of
`
`other foreign entities that are related to PGS, Inc. This attempt to force PGS, Inc. to produce
`
`documents that are in the custody or control of a foreign company is improper. PGS, Inc. has
`
`previously communicated with WesternGeco and advised WesternGeco that the documents it
`
`sought, to the extent they existed, were in the possession of PGS, Inc.’s Norwegian parent
`
`company, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA. Rather than seeking discovery from Petroleum Geo-
`
`Services ASA, WesternGeco has served this subpoena on PGS, Inc., which has only limited
`
`contacts with the products of ION. Thus, despite being informed of the proper custodian of the
`
`documents its seeks, WesternGeco has proceeded with issuing a subpoena in the name of this
`
`Court, seeking to order the production of documents that are not in the custody or control of PGS,
`
`Inc.
`
`More specifically, the Subpoena is directed at PGS, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Houston, Texas, but requests documents from “PGS,” defined as
`
`follows:
`
`10087-v1/1031.0050
`
`
`2
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 2
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 3 of 19
`
`Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. and all its predecessors (merged, acquired, or
`otherwise), successors, subsidiaries, parents, sisters, partnerships and affiliates
`thereof (including, but not limited to, Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, Petroleum
`GeoServices (U.S.), Inc., PGS Onshore do Brasil, PGS Onshore Inc., PGS Mexicana,
`PGS Onshore Peru, PGS de Venezuela, PGS Geophysical AS, PGS Technology
`(Sweden) AB, PGS Reservoir Ltd., PGS - Kazakhstan LLP, PGS CIS LLP, PGS Data
`Processing Middle East, PGS Angola Ltd., PGS Exploration (UK) Ltd., PGS
`Exploration (Nigeria) Ltd., Petroleum Geo-Services Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., PGS
`Australia Pty. Ltd., PGS Japan K.K., Petroleum Geo-Services Exploration, PGS Data
`Processing & Technology Sdn. Bhd., and PT. Petroprima Geo Servis Nusantara), and
`all directors, officers, agents, employees, attorneys and other persons acting on their
`behalf.
`
`WesternGeco’s definition of “PGS” includes an expansive group of separate and distinct entities
`
`stretching across the world. PGS, Inc. does not have control of these foreign entities, and does not
`
`have possession, custody, or control of their documents. The Hague Convention provides the
`
`proper avenue for obtaining documents in the possession of these foreign entities, and PGS, Inc.
`
`has directed WesternGeco to seek discovery directly from entities it believes have documents
`
`related to its pending litigation with ION. Imposing the burden of producing such documents on
`
`PGS, Inc. improperly exceeds the scope of discovery allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure and places an undue burden and expense on PGS, Inc.
`
`
`
`Further, WesternGeco is attempting to use the Subpoena to gather information unrelated to
`
`its litigation with ION. In the Subpoena, WesternGeco lists only three devices by name (the
`
`ORCA, DigiFIN, and DigiBIRD) that are apparently related to its infringement action against ION.
`
`However, in the Subpoena, WesternGeco seeks information regarding broad classes of products
`
`and services, including products neither sold by ION to PGS, Inc. nor forming any apparent basis
`
`for WesternGeco’s accusations against ION. The scope of discovery sought from PGS, Inc. is
`
`properly limited to documents regarding those devices specifically named by WesternGeco.
`
`
`
`Finally, it should be noted that PGS, Inc. is not a party to this lawsuit, and the vast majority
`
`of the relevant documents that WesternGeco seeks should be in the possession of ION, who is a
`
`10087-v1/1031.0050
`
`
`3
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 3
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 4 of 19
`
`party to the lawsuit. Further, locating all of the information that WesternGeco seeks would impose
`
`an unreasonable burden on non-party, PGS, Inc., requiring it to expend a large amount of time and
`
`money to search for potentially responsive documents. Given the substantial burden placed on
`
`PGS, Inc., and the marginal relevance that such documents would have beyond the documents
`
`already produced by ION, PGS, Inc. submits that this discovery is unreasonable, unwarranted, and
`
`unduly harassing. Consequently, PGS, Inc. will only produce communications and documents
`
`related to the marketing and sales of ION products that are in the possession of PGS, Inc., and
`
`which can be located with a reasonable search of the files of PGS, Inc. employees that have
`
`directly communicated with ION during the relevant period.
`
`
`
`These and other objectionable aspects of the Subpoena are detailed below.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`PGS, Inc. generally objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it purports to impose
`
`on PGS, Inc. any duty not expressly required by, or that is inconsistent with, the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure.
`
`2.
`
`To the extent that the Subpoena seeks the production of documents not in the
`
`possession, custody, or control of PGS, Inc., PGS, Inc. objects to the Subpoena on the grounds that
`
`it seeks documents beyond the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`3.
`
`To the extent that the Subpoena seeks the production of documents possessed or
`
`maintained in a foreign jurisdiction, PGS, Inc. objects to the Subpoena on the grounds that it is
`
`unduly burdensome and seeks documents beyond the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`4.
`
`To the extent that the Subpoena seeks the disclosure of information that is protected
`
`by the work product doctrine or that is privileged, including, but not limited to, information that is
`
`10087-v1/1031.0050
`
`
`4
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 4
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 5 of 19
`
`protected from discovery under the attorney-client privilege, the joint defense privilege and/or the
`
`party communication privilege, PGS, Inc. objects to the Subpoena on the basis that it exceeds the
`
`permissible scope of discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PGS, Inc. objects
`
`to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks the disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions,
`
`opinions, or legal theories of the attorneys or other representatives of PGS, Inc. concerning this
`
`litigation. PGS, Inc. will not disclose any such privileged information.
`
`5.
`
`PGS, Inc. objects to the Discovery Requests, to the extent that any such request
`
`calls for production of documents without a relevant time period limitation, as being unduly
`
`burdensome and overly broad.
`
`6.
`
`PGS, Inc. objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it seeks disclosure of highly
`
`confidential documents with minimal relevance to this litigation. The potential prejudice to PGS,
`
`Inc. in producing such document greatly outweighs the probative value of such documents to
`
`WesternGeco in this litigation. PGS, Inc. is a non-party, and it should not be required to strip bear
`
`its highly confidential documents to its competitor under the guise of discovery. PGS, Inc. objects
`
`to the Subpoena to the extent that it seeks production of documents that are not relevant to the
`
`subject matter of this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence, including but not limited to requests for information unrelated to ION or
`
`PGS, Inc.’s interactions with ION.
`
`7.
`
`PGS, Inc. objects to the Subpoena’s definition of “PGS” to the extent that it
`
`includes entities other than PGS, Inc. and “directors, officers, agents, employees, attorneys and
`
`other persons acting on . . . behalf” of entities other than PGS, Inc. because this definition includes
`
`several distinct companies in numerous countries and PGS, Inc. has no control over these entities
`
`10087-v1/1031.0050
`
`
`5
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 5
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 6 of 19
`
`or any documents in their possession. PGS, Inc. will limit production to documents in PGS, Inc.’s
`
`control and will produce no documents possessed or maintained by other entities.
`
`8.
`
`PGS, Inc. objects to the Subpoena’s definition of “ION” to the extent that it
`
`includes entities other than ION Geophysical Corporation. It is unduly burdensome to require
`
`PGS, Inc. to research and identify all of ION Geophysical Corporation’s “predecessors (merged,
`
`acquired, or otherwise), successors, subsidiaries, parents, sisters, partnerships and affiliates” as
`
`well as “all directors, officers, agents, employees, attorneys and other persons acting on their
`
`behalf.” Thus, PGS, Inc. will limit its production to documents clearly related to ION Geophysical
`
`Corporation.
`
`9.
`
`PGS, Inc. objects to the use of the terms “Bird” and “Streamer Control Device(s)”
`
`in the Subpoena to the extent that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, or call for production
`
`of information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant
`
`information. In particular, these definitions encompass products and services neither sold by ION
`
`to PGS, Inc. nor forming the basis of WesternGeco’s claims of infringement against ION. PGS,
`
`Inc. will limit its production of documents to those regarding the products currently forming the
`
`basis of WesternGeco’s complaint against ION—namely, the ORCA, DigiFIN, and DigiBIRD. If
`
`WesternGeco adds or revises its claims to include other products, additional discovery is more
`
`properly sought directly from ION, the Defendant in the litigation, rather than PGS, Inc., a non-
`
`party.
`
`10.
`
`PGS, Inc. objects to the use of the term “ION Accused Product” in the Subpoena to
`
`the extent that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, or calls for production of information that is
`
`irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information. PGS, Inc.
`
`does not have sufficient information to know whether a product was sold “for ION.” The
`
`10087-v1/1031.0050
`
`
`6
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 6
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 7 of 19
`
`definition of “ION Accused Product” is also unduly burdensome to the extent that it would require
`
`PGS, Inc., a non-party, to monitor the accusations WesternGeco makes “at any time during the
`
`course of Civil Action No. 4:09-CV-01827.” Thus, PGS, Inc. will limit its production of
`
`documents to those regarding the products currently forming the basis of WesternGeco’s complaint
`
`against ION—namely, the ORCA, DigiFIN, and DigiBIRD. If WesternGeco adds or revises its
`
`claims to include other products, additional discovery is more properly sought directly from ION,
`
`the Defendant in the litigation, rather than PGS, Inc., a non-party.
`
`11.
`
`PGS, Inc. objects to the use of the term “communication” in the Subpoena to the
`
`extent that it is intended to or may attempt to expand PGS, Inc.'s duties beyond those required by
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or is otherwise overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, or
`
`oppressive. In addition, telephone or face-to-face conversations cannot and will not be produced.
`
`12.
`
`PGS, Inc. objects to the Subpoena’s Definitions and Instructions requesting
`
`documents “located in the personal files of any and all past and present directors, officers, agents,
`
`representatives, employees, attorneys and accountants of PGS” to the extent they are not within the
`
`possession, custody, or control of PGS, Inc.
`
`13.
`
`PGS, Inc. generally objects to the Subpoena as being overly broad and unreasonably
`
`burdensome. WesternGeco’s requests exceed the scope of discovery permissible from a non-party
`
`(such as PGS, Inc.), especially given that ION and WesternGeco are competitors of PGS, Inc. and
`
`that the existing Protective Order in this case does not adequately protect the confidentiality of PGS,
`
`Inc.’s trade secrets and confidential and proprietary information from disclosure to others or to PGS,
`
`Inc.’s competitors.
`
`14.
`
`PGS, Inc. objects to the location of the production of documents as specified in the
`
`Subpoena. Subject to PGS, Inc.’s remaining objections, PGS, Inc. will produce documents at the
`
`10087-v1/1031.0050
`
`
`7
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 7
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 8 of 19
`
`office of its Counsel, Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP, 600 Travis, Suite 6710, Houston, Texas
`
`77002.
`
`15.
`
`PGS, Inc. objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it does not allow a reasonable
`
`time to comply as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PGS, Inc. will produce
`
`documents only after it has had a reasonable time to comply.
`
`16.
`
`These general objections are referred to herein as “General Objections” and are each
`
`incorporated by reference into each of PGS, Inc.’s objections and responses below as if set forth in
`
`full therein.
`
`
`
`
`
`Subject to these General Objections, PGS, Inc. responds specifically as follows:
`
`RESPONSES
`
`REQUEST NO. 1: Documents sufficient to show the quantity and type of all Streamer
`
`Control Devices (including the manufacturer, trade name, model, number, part number, catalog
`
`number, and each other designation known to PGS) made, used, licensed, distributed, supplied,
`
`purchased, sold, or offered for sale by PGS, including but not limited to any ION Accused Product,
`
`on a monthly basis since February 25, 2003 (in electronic form to the extent such electronic files
`
`exist), whether made, used, licensed, distributed, supplied, purchased, sold, or offered for sale
`
`separately or as part of any other product or service.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`PGS, Inc. incorporates by reference its General Objections. PGS, Inc. also objects to this
`
`request to the extent that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, exceeds the permissible scope of
`
`discovery, and is not reasonably tailored to include only matter relevant to the pending lawsuit. In
`
`particular, the request of information regarding “all Streamer Control Devices” calls for the
`
`production of documents having no relevance to the occurrences made the subject matter of the
`
`10087-v1/1031.0050
`
`
`8
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 8
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 9 of 19
`
`pending litigation and includes devices neither sold by ION nor forming the basis of
`
`WesternGeco’s claims of infringement against ION. PGS, Inc. will construe “ION Accused
`
`Product” as describing only the ORCA, DigiFIN, and DigiBIRD. PGS, Inc. will not produce any
`
`documents regarding events or occurrences other than those presently at issue in this litigation. In
`
`addition, PGS, Inc. objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to documents in its
`
`possession, custody, or control. PGS, Inc. also objects to this request to the extent it seeks
`
`disclosure of confidential, proprietary business information of PGS, Inc.
`
`To the extent that this request seeks the disclosure of information that is protected by the
`
`work product doctrine or that is privileged, including, but not limited to, information that is
`
`protected from discovery under the attorney-client privilege, the joint defense privilege and/or the
`
`party communication privilege, PGS, Inc. objects to this request on the basis that it exceeds the
`
`permissible scope of discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PGS, Inc. objects
`
`to this request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions,
`
`or legal theories of the attorneys or other representatives of PGS, Inc. concerning this litigation.
`
`PGS, Inc. will not disclose any such privileged information.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, PGS, Inc. will produce relevant, responsive,
`
`non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that it can locate with a reasonable
`
`search.
`
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 2: All documents related to PGS's purchase, use, operation, and/or offer
`
`for sale of any ION Accused Product, including but not limited to DigiBIRD, DigiFIN, and ORCA,
`
`and systems or services incorporating or including any or all of these products.
`
`10087-v1/1031.0050
`
`
`9
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 9
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 10 of 19
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`PGS, Inc. incorporates by reference its General Objections. PGS, Inc. also objects to this
`
`request to the extent that it is overly broad, exceeds the permissible scope of discovery, and is not
`
`reasonably tailored to include only matter relevant to the pending lawsuit. PGS, Inc. will construe
`
`“ION Accused Product” as describing only the ORCA, DigiFIN, and DigiBIRD. In addition, PGS,
`
`Inc. objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to documents in its possession,
`
`custody, or control. PGS, Inc. also objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of
`
`confidential, proprietary business information of PGS, Inc.
`
`To the extent that this request seeks the disclosure of information that is protected by the
`
`work product doctrine or that is privileged, including, but not limited to, information that is
`
`protected from discovery under the attorney-client privilege, the joint defense privilege and/or the
`
`party communication privilege, PGS, Inc. objects to this request on the basis that it exceeds the
`
`permissible scope of discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PGS, Inc. objects
`
`to this request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions,
`
`or legal theories of the attorneys or other representatives of PGS, Inc. concerning this litigation.
`
`PGS, Inc. will not disclose any such privileged information.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, PGS, Inc. will produce relevant, responsive,
`
`non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that it can locate with a reasonable
`
`search.
`
`
`
`10087-v1/1031.0050
`
`
`10
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 10
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 11 of 19
`
`REQUEST NO. 3: All communications between PGS and ION relating to DigiBIRD,
`
`DigiFIN, ORCA or any other Streamer Control Device or Bird.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`PGS, Inc. incorporates by reference its General Objections. PGS, Inc. also objects to this
`
`request to the extent that it is overly broad, exceeds the permissible scope of discovery, and is not
`
`reasonably tailored to include only matter relevant to the pending lawsuit. In particular, the request
`
`of information regarding “any other Streamer Control Device or Bird” calls for the production of
`
`documents having no relevance to the occurrences made the subject matter of the pending
`
`litigation and includes devices neither sold by ION nor forming the basis of WesternGeco’s claims
`
`of infringement against ION. PGS, Inc. will only produce documents regarding the ORCA,
`
`DigiFIN, and DigiBIRD. In addition, PGS, Inc. objects to this request to the extent that it is not
`
`limited to documents in its possession, custody, or control. PGS, Inc. also objects to this request to
`
`the extent it seeks disclosure of confidential, proprietary business information of PGS, Inc.
`
`To the extent that this request seeks the disclosure of information that is protected by the
`
`work product doctrine or that is privileged, including, but not limited to, information that is
`
`protected from discovery under the attorney-client privilege, the joint defense privilege and/or the
`
`party communication privilege, PGS, Inc. objects to this request on the basis that it exceeds the
`
`permissible scope of discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PGS, Inc. objects
`
`to this request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions,
`
`or legal theories of the attorneys or other representatives of PGS, Inc. concerning this litigation.
`
`PGS, Inc. will not disclose any such privileged information.
`
`10087-v1/1031.0050
`
`
`11
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 11
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, PGS, Inc. will produce relevant, responsive,
`
`non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that it can locate with a reasonable
`
`search.
`
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 4: All documents related to bids, tenders, requests for proposals, or offers
`
`for sale PGS has received, transmitted, solicited or responded to which include or relate to Streamer
`
`Control Devices, including but not limited to any ION Accused Product.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`PGS, Inc. incorporates by reference its General Objections. PGS, Inc. also objects to this
`
`request to the extent that it is overly broad, exceeds the permissible scope of discovery, and is not
`
`reasonably tailored to include only matter relevant to the pending lawsuit. In particular, the request
`
`of information regarding “any Streamer Control Devices, including but not limited to any ION
`
`Accused Product” calls for the production of documents having no relevance to the occurrences
`
`made the subject matter of the pending litigation and includes devices neither sold by ION nor
`
`forming the basis of WesternGeco’s claims of infringement against ION. PGS, Inc. will only
`
`produce documents regarding the ORCA, DigiFIN, and DigiBIRD. In addition, PGS, Inc. objects
`
`to this request to the extent that it is not limited to documents in its possession, custody, or control.
`
`PGS, Inc. also objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of confidential, proprietary
`
`business information of PGS, Inc.
`
`To the extent that this request seeks the disclosure of information that is protected by the
`
`work product doctrine or that is privileged, including, but not limited to, information that is
`
`protected from discovery under the attorney-client privilege, the joint defense privilege and/or the
`
`party communication privilege, PGS, Inc. objects to this request on the basis that it exceeds the
`
`10087-v1/1031.0050
`
`
`12
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 12
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 13 of 19
`
`permissible scope of discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PGS, Inc. objects
`
`to this request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions,
`
`or legal theories of the attorneys or other representatives of PGS, Inc. concerning this litigation.
`
`PGS, Inc. will not disclose any such privileged information.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, PGS, Inc. will produce relevant, responsive,
`
`non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that it can locate with a reasonable
`
`search.
`
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 5: All documents relating to the benefits, advantages, value, or
`
`importance of Streamer Control Devices, both in general and as relating to any specific Streamer
`
`Control Device.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`PGS, Inc. incorporates by reference its General Objections. PGS, Inc. also objects to this
`
`request in its entirety as seeking information that is irrelevant to the dispute between WesternGeco
`
`and ION. In addition, PGS, Inc. objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of
`
`confidential, proprietary business information of PGS, Inc.
`
`To the extent that this request seeks the disclosure of information that is protected by the
`
`work product doctrine or that is privileged, including, but not limited to, information that is
`
`protected from discovery under the attorney-client privilege, the joint defense privilege and/or the
`
`party communication privilege, PGS, Inc. objects to this request on the basis that it exceeds the
`
`permissible scope of discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PGS, Inc. objects
`
`to this request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions,
`
`10087-v1/1031.0050
`
`
`13
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 13
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 14 of 19
`
`or legal theories of the attorneys or other representatives of PGS, Inc. concerning this litigation.
`
`PGS, Inc. will not disclose any such privileged information.
`
`PGS, Inc. will not produce any documents in response to this request.
`
`
`
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 6: All documents relating to the benefits, disadvantages, value, or
`
`importance of purchasing or not purchasing any products or services from ION, including but not
`
`limited to Streamer Control Devices.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`PGS, Inc. incorporates by reference its General Objections. PGS, Inc. also objects to this
`
`request in its entirety as seeking information that is irrelevant to the dispute between WesternGeco
`
`and ION. In addition, PGS, Inc. objects to this request to the extent it seeks disclosure of
`
`confidential, proprietary business information of PGS, Inc.
`
`To the extent that this request seeks the disclosure of information that is protected by the
`
`work product doctrine or that is privileged, including, but not limited to, information that is
`
`protected from discovery under the attorney-client privilege, the joint defense privilege and/or the
`
`party communication privilege, PGS, Inc. objects to this request on the basis that it exceeds the
`
`permissible scope of discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PGS, Inc. objects
`
`to this request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions,
`
`or legal theories of the attorneys or other representatives of PGS, Inc. concerning this litigation.
`
`PGS, Inc. will not disclose any such privileged information.
`
`
`
`PGS, Inc. will not produce any documents in response to this request.
`
`
`
`10087-v1/1031.0050
`
`
`14
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 14
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 15 of 19
`
`REQUEST NO. 7: All documents, including but not limited to studies and tests conducted
`
`by PGS, regarding the benefits and deficiencies of any Streamer Control Device, including but not
`
`limited to any ION product.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`PGS, Inc. incorporates by reference its General Objections. PGS, Inc. also objects to this
`
`request to the extent that it is overly broad, exceeds the permissible scope of discovery, and is not
`
`reasonably tailored to include only matter relevant to the pending lawsuit. In particular, the request
`
`of information regarding “any Streamer Control Device” calls for the production of documents
`
`having no relevance to the occurrences made the subject matter of the pending litigation and
`
`includes devices neither sold by ION nor forming the basis of WesternGeco’s claims of
`
`infringement against ION. PGS, Inc. will only produce documents regarding the ORCA, DigiFIN,
`
`and DigiBIRD. In addition, PGS, Inc. objects to this request to the extent that it is not limited to
`
`documents in its possession, custody, or control. PGS, Inc. also objects to this request to the extent
`
`it seeks disclosure of confidential, proprietary business information of PGS, Inc.
`
`To the extent that this request seeks the disclosure of information that is protected by the
`
`work product doctrine or that is privileged, including, but not limited to, information that is
`
`protected from discovery under the attorney-client privilege, the joint defense privilege and/or the
`
`party communication privilege, PGS, Inc. objects to this request on the basis that it exceeds the
`
`permissible scope of discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PGS, Inc. objects
`
`to this request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions,
`
`or legal theories of the attorneys or other representatives of PGS, Inc. concerning this litigation.
`
`PGS, Inc. will not disclose any such privileged information.
`
`10087-v1/1031.0050
`
`
`15
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2017, pg. 15
`IPR2015-00567
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`

`

`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 57 Filed in TXSD on 02/08/10 Page 16 of 19
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, PGS, Inc. will produce relevant, responsive,
`
`non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control that it can locate with a reasonable
`
`search.
`
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 8: All documents relating to the benefits, advantages, value, or
`
`importance of any ION products, including but not limited to Streamer Control Devices, used,
`
`licensed, purchased, sold, or offered for sale by PGS.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`PGS, Inc. incorporates by reference its General Objections. PGS, Inc. also objects to this
`
`request in its entirety as seeking information that is irrelevant to the dispute between WesternGeco
`
`and ION. The benefits PGS, Inc. sees regarding ION products have no bearing on the dispute
`
`between WesternGeco and ION. In addition, PGS, Inc. objects to this request to the extent it seeks
`
`disclosure of confidential, proprietary business information of PGS, Inc.
`
`
`
`To the extent that this request seeks the disclosure of information that is protected by the
`
`work product doctrine or that is privileged, including, but not limited to, information that is
`
`protected from discovery under the attorney-client privilege, the joint defense privilege and/or the
`
`party communication privilege, PGS, Inc. objects to this request on the basis that it exceeds the
`
`permissible scope of discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PGS, Inc. objects
`
`to this request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of the mental impression