Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
Defendant Intuit moved to compel Plaintiff Samesurf to identify litigation funders and produce funding agreements. The Court granted the motion in part, ordering Samesurf to identify persons with a financial interest in the outcome and to submit funding agreements for in camera review, but denied the motion to the extent it sought documents not related to patent valuation.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to compel Interrogatory No. 11 (identities of persons/entities with financial interest) granted in part“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.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the relevance and proportionality standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) to determine that the identity of litigation funders is discoverable. The cited authorities support the proposition that such identities are relevant to witness and juror bias and are not protected by attorney work product. The limitation to 'financial interest' aligns with the specific relevance rationale provided. |
Motion to compel Request for Production No. 42 (litigation funding agreements) denied in part and granted in part via in camera review“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... The Court therefore ORDERS Samesurf to submit any litigation funding agreements directly to the undersigned’s chambers by not later than December 12, 2024.” | agree with court The court applied a tailored relevance standard, limiting the scope of discovery to funding agreements that reflect patent valuations. This is a defensible application of Rule 26(b)(1) to prevent overbroad discovery while preserving relevant information. The use of in camera review is a standard procedural mechanism to resolve disputes over privilege or relevance without disclosing potentially sensitive information to the opposing party prematurely. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on persuasive district court authority from within the Ninth Circuit to support its rulings on relevance and proportionality. It correctly identifies the specific relevance of funder identities (bias) and funding documents (valuation) and employs a standard in camera review process to manage the scope of document production. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning provided for the specific rulings made.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMESURF, INC., Case No.: 22-cv-412-RSH-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING INTUIT’S 13 v. MOTION TO COMPEL 14 INTUIT, INC., [Dkt. No. 81] 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is Defendant Intuit, Inc.’s motion to compel. Dkt. No. 81. Intuit 18 seeks discovery regarding “individuals or entities with an ownership, financial, or other 19 interest in the outcome of any litigation, enforcement effort, or licensing effort involving 20 the patents-in-suit and/or related patents/applications or in the asserted patents.” Dkt. No. 21 81-1 at 2. Specifically, Intuit seeks an order compelling Plaintiff Samesurf, Inc., to respond 22 to its Interrogatory No. 11 and Request for Production No. 42. The Court heard argument 23 on the motion on December 4, 2024. For the reasons stated below and on the record during 24 the December 4 hearing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 25 Regarding Interrogatory No. 11, the Court finds the identities of persons or entities 26 who have a financial interest in the outcome of this litigation is relevant and proportional 27 to the needs of the case. See, e.g., Taction Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2022 WL 18781396, 28 / / / 1 at **4-5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2022) (finding identity of “litigation funders” relevant) ; GoTV 2 Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 2023 WL 4237609, at *13 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2023) 3 (same); Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 435 F. Supp. 3d 1014, 1019 (D. Ariz. 4 2020) (ordering production of identity of litigation funders as relevant to witness and juror 5 bias). The Court does not agree that the identity of such persons or entities funding the 6 litigation is protected attorney work product. See id. at 1024. Accordingly, the Court 7 GRANTS the motion to compel this information. By not later than December 12, 2024, 8 Samesurf shall serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 11 identifying all 9 persons or entities with a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. The motion to 10 compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 11 is in all other respects DENIED. 11 Regarding Request for Production No. 42, the Court finds that “litigation funding 12 agreements and related documents can be directly relevant to the valuations placed on the 13 patents prior to the . . . litigation.” Taction Tech., 2022 WL 18781396, at *4 (further finding 14 documents responsive to RFPs calling for litigation funding documents were relevant, “but 15 only to the extent that they seek litigation funding agreements and related documents that 16 contain or reflect valuations of the Asserted Patents”). The Court further finds that absent 17 information concerning the valuation of the asserted patent, documents responsive to 18 Request for Production No. 42 are not relevant and the motion to compel such documents 19 is DENIED. See id. at *5. 20 The Court finds an in camera review of any litigation funding agreements to assess 21 whether those agreements address, directly or indirectly, the value of the patent at issue in 22 this case will assist in the resolution of the parties’ dispute. See GOTV Streaming, 2023 23 WL 4237609, at *13 (noting the court’s in camera review of litigation funding 24 agreements); Taction Tech., 2022 WL 18781396, at *6 (noting the court “ordered plaintiff 25 26 27 1 Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, citations, footnotes, and parallel reporter citations are omitted from citations. 28 | submit . . . for in camera review .. . any litigation funding agreement(s) for this 2 || litigation”). The Court therefore ORDERS Samesurf to submit any litigation funding 3 ||agreements directly to the undersigned’s chambers by not later than December 12, 2024. 4 further order will issue following the Court’s review. 5 ISSO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: December 4, 2024 _—_— Ctl edb 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28