Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit LLC

Background

The parties submitted a discovery letter concerning Cellspin’s response to Request for Production No. 2. The request sought documents relating to offers to license or sell Cellspin’s patents, including infringement allegations, notice letters, third-party responses, and communications about licensing or sales efforts.

The court had previously ordered Cellspin to conduct a further search and produce any additional responsive documents within ten days. The defendants argued that Cellspin’s production remained incomplete and that Cellspin continued producing documents after the deadline. Cellspin stated that it had produced all responsive documents.

Rulings

The court deemed the matter suitable for decision without a hearing and denied each of the defendants’ three requests:

1. Additional production: The court denied the request to require more documents. It relied on Cellspin’s statements that it had produced all documents responsive to the request and was not withholding documents based on privilege. The court also stated that it could not compel production of documents Cellspin no longer possessed.

2. Sworn declaration: The court denied the request to require Cellspin’s CEO, Gurvinder Singh, to submit a sworn declaration describing his document-search efforts and explaining why certain documents were not preserved or produced. The court found that the defendants had not provided a basis for imposing that requirement.

3. Exclusion of late-produced documents: The court denied the request to prohibit Cellspin from using all documents produced after the ten-day deadline. The defendants asserted that the late productions had caused prejudice, but the court found that they had provided no information establishing that prejudice.

Potential later sanctions

The court stated that, if the defendants had a sufficient basis to believe Cellspin destroyed documents, they could seek sanctions based on destruction of evidence. The court also stated that, if Cellspin later produced responsive documents, the defendants might have grounds to seek evidentiary sanctions prohibiting Cellspin from using those late-produced documents. Those possibilities were not rulings imposing sanctions in this order.

Disposition

The court denied all three discovery requests and stated that the order disposed of docket entry 254. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore.