Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, 2014 WL 5321095 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014)
In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., the court had to decide whether to grant motion to compel the production of e-mails when the requesting party is not able to do the same in return. The court granted the motion in part.
In this patent infringement case, Plaintiff served various requests for documents, including custodial e-mails from archival systems. Defendant Blue Coat objected to producing such e-mails since the Plaintiff “is not able to do the same in return.” In assessing the Plaintiff’s motion to compel, the court indicated that, “[r]educed to its essence, Rule 26(b)(2)(iii) requires this court to decide: have Blue Coat’s discovery responses been fair?” The court concluded that Defendant’s responses had “largely been fair, but not entirely.” With respect to the question of the custodial emails, the court deemed that Defendant had been less than fair and found Plaintiff’s request reasonable. The court reasoned: “Blue Coat may largely be in the right that it should not have to dig through legacy systems when Finjan is unable to the same for its custodians. But one party’s discovery shortcomings are rarely enough to justify another’s”.
Read the full decision at http://www.ediscoverylaw…
For more information contact Nathan M. Crystal
Follow us on& Like us on