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
`
`