Competitive Access Systems v. Apple Inc.

Background

Competitive Access Systems (CAS) and Apple asked the court to resolve disputes about two discovery orders in this patent-infringement action: a protective order governing discovery materials and an electronically stored information (ESI) order governing email discovery.

Source-code printing

The parties disputed whether the protective order should impose presumptive limits on the number of pages of source code CAS could print. Apple proposed that CAS generally could not print more than five pages from a continuous block of source code, that printing more than five pages would be presumed excessive, and that CAS could not print more than 20 total pages without court permission. CAS opposed presumptive limits on consecutive pages and a total-page cap.

The court declined to adopt Apple’s proposed source-code printing limits at that time. It explained that Apple expected to produce source code for multiple accused features, devices, and services covering more than 10 years, and that the record did not allow the court to make a reasoned determination about appropriate limits. The parties were ordered to file a revised protective order omitting the disputed position text and to use the court’s discovery-dispute procedures for future disputes about printing source code.

Email custodians and search terms

The parties also disputed limits on email custodians and search terms. Apple proposed the five-custodian and five-search-term-per-custodian limits in the Northern District of California’s voluntary Model ESI Order, for a total of 25 search terms. CAS proposed allowing each side to use up to 10 custodians and 50 total search terms.

The court adopted CAS’s proposal for the relevant ESI-order provisions, with modifications. Each side must limit its email-production requests to no more than 10 custodians likely to have the most relevant email. A party must use fewer than 10 custodians if it cannot identify that many custodians likely to possess relevant discoverable information in custodial email. Each party must initially limit its searches to no more than 50 total search terms, divided among the selected custodians as that party chooses. The terms must be mutually agreed upon, and disputes about custodians or search terms must be handled under the court’s discovery-dispute procedures.

Disposition

The court declined to adopt Apple’s proposed source-code printing limits and adopted CAS’s email-custodian and search-term proposal with modifications. The parties had to file revised proposed protective and ESI orders for the court’s review and approval by December 19, 2025.