Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · 3:22-cv-00412 · 2024-12-12 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Robert Steven Huie (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:17Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a litigation funding agreement submitted for in camera review in response to a motion to compel. The court denied the motion to compel, finding the agreement irrelevant because it did not contain information concerning the value of the patent at issue.

What the court decided	The model
Defendant's motion to compel production of the litigation funding agreement is denied. “the Court finds the agreement is not relevant, and DENIES Defendant’s motion to compel its production.”	agree with court The court relies on the precedent that litigation funding agreements are generally not discoverable unless they contain information relevant to the case, such as the value of the patent or the funder's interest in the outcome. By determining the specific agreement lacked information regarding the patent's value, the court applied the relevant legal standard to the facts found during in camera review.

What the court decided

The model

Defendant's motion to compel production of the litigation funding agreement is denied.

“the Court finds the agreement is not relevant, and DENIES Defendant’s motion to compel its production.”

agree with court
The court relies on the precedent that litigation funding agreements are generally not discoverable unless they contain information relevant to the case, such as the value of the patent or the funder's interest in the outcome. By determining the specific agreement lacked information regarding the patent's value, the court applied the relevant legal standard to the facts found during in camera review.

The order itself: sound — The order is concise but logically sound. It references a prior order (Dkt. No. 84) that presumably established the legal framework for the in camera review. The court performed the review, identified the absence of relevant information (patent value), and applied the cited authority to deny the motion. The reasoning directly answers the motion with the appropriate authority for the district.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

I 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 Plaintity, | FURTHER ORDER REGARDING 13 || INTUIT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 14 || INTUIT, INC., [Dkt. No. 81] 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pursuant to the Court’s December 4, 2024 Order [Dkt. No. 84], Plaintiff has lodged 18 |/a litigation funding agreement for the Court’s in camera review. Having reviewed the 19 ||agreement, the Court determines it contains no information concerning the value of the 20 patent at issue in this case. Accordingly, and for the reasons explained in the Court’s 21 || December 4 Order, the Court finds the agreement is not relevant, and DENIES Defendant’s 22 || motion to compel its production. See Taction Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2022 WL 18781396, 23 *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2022). 24 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: December 12, 2024 _— 26 Thi hohe 7 27 “Hon. DavidD.Leshner SCS 28 United States Magistrate Judge