`of 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`SAMESURF, INC.,
`
`v.
`
`INTUIT, INC.,
`
` Case No.: 22-cv-412-RSH-DDL
`
`FURTHER ORDER REGARDING
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`[Dkt. No. 81]
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s December 4, 2024 Order [Dkt. No. 84], Plaintiff has lodged
`
`a litigation funding agreement for the Court’s in camera review. Having reviewed the
`
`agreement, the Court determines it contains no information concerning the value of the
`
`patent at issue in this case. Accordingly, and for the reasons explained in the Court’s
`
`December 4 Order, the Court finds the agreement is not relevant, and DENIES Defendant’s
`
`motion to compel its production. See Taction Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2022 WL 18781396,
`
`at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2022).
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: December 12, 2024
`
`
`
`Hon. David D. Leshner
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`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
`
`