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 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 84 Filed 12/04/24 PageID.1567 Page 1
`of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No.: 22-cv-412-RSH-DDL
`
`ORDER REGARDING INTUIT’S
`MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`[Dkt. No. 81]
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`SAMESURF, INC.,
`
`v.
`INTUIT, INC.,
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Defendant Intuit, Inc.’s motion to compel. Dkt. No. 81. Intuit
`seeks discovery regarding “individuals or entities with an ownership, financial, or other
`interest in the outcome of any litigation, enforcement effort, or licensing effort involving
`the patents-in-suit and/or related patents/applications or in the asserted patents.” Dkt. No.
`81-1 at 2. Specifically, Intuit seeks an order compelling Plaintiff Samesurf, Inc., to respond
`to its Interrogatory No. 11 and Request for Production No. 42. The Court heard argument
`on the motion on December 4, 2024. For the reasons stated below and on the record during
`the December 4 hearing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
`Regarding Interrogatory No. 11, the Court finds the identities of persons or entities
`who have a financial interest in the outcome of this litigation is relevant and proportional
`to the needs of the case. See, e.g., Taction Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2022 WL 18781396,
`/ / /
`
`1
`
`22-cv-412-RSH-DDL
`
`

`

`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 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 84 Filed 12/04/24 PageID.1568 Page 2
`of 3
`
`
`at **4-5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2022) (finding identity of “litigation funders” relevant)1; GoTV
`Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 2023 WL 4237609, at *13 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2023)
`(same); Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 435 F. Supp. 3d 1014, 1019 (D. Ariz.
`2020) (ordering production of identity of litigation funders as relevant to witness and juror
`bias). The Court does not agree that the identity of such persons or entities funding the
`litigation is protected attorney work product. See id. at 1024. Accordingly, the Court
`GRANTS the motion to compel this information. By not later than December 12, 2024,
`Samesurf shall serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 11 identifying all
`persons or entities with a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. The motion to
`compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 11 is in all other respects DENIED.
`Regarding Request for Production No. 42, the Court finds that “litigation funding
`agreements and related documents can be directly relevant to the valuations placed on the
`patents prior to the . . . litigation.” Taction Tech., 2022 WL 18781396, at *4 (further finding
`documents responsive to RFPs calling for litigation funding documents were relevant, “but
`only to the extent that they seek litigation funding agreements and related documents that
`contain or reflect valuations of the Asserted Patents”). The Court further finds that absent
`information concerning the valuation of the asserted patent, documents responsive to
`Request for Production No. 42 are not relevant and the motion to compel such documents
`is DENIED. See id. at *5.
`The Court finds an in camera review of any litigation funding agreements to assess
`whether those agreements address, directly or indirectly, the value of the patent at issue in
`this case will assist in the resolution of the parties’ dispute. See GOTV Streaming, 2023
`WL 4237609, at *13 (noting the court’s in camera review of litigation funding
`agreements); Taction Tech., 2022 WL 18781396, at *6 (noting the court “ordered plaintiff
`
`
`
`Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, citations,
`1
`footnotes, and parallel reporter citations are omitted from citations.
`
`
`2
`
`22-cv-412-RSH-DDL
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 84 Filed 12/04/24 PageID.1569 Page 3
`of 3
`
`
`to submit . . . for in camera review . . . any litigation funding agreement(s) for this
`litigation”). The Court therefore ORDERS Samesurf to submit any litigation funding
`agreements directly to the undersigned’s chambers by not later than December 12, 2024.
`A further order will issue following the Court’s review.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`Dated: December 4, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`Hon. David D. Leshner
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`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
`
`3
`
`22-cv-412-RSH-DDL
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket