NantWorks, LLC v. Niantic, Inc.

Background

NantWorks, which develops technologies involving healthcare, commerce, and digital entertainment, sued Niantic for allegedly infringing NantWorks’ patents through the augmented-reality game apps “Pokémon Go” and “Harry Potter: Wizards Unite.” The parties disputed whether NantWorks had to answer Niantic’s Interrogatory Nos. 8–18. Interrogatories are written questions that one party sends to another during discovery.

NantWorks argued that Niantic had not shown that the interrogatories were relevant, proportional to the needs of the case, and non-cumulative. NantWorks also argued that Niantic had exceeded the 25-interrogatory limit in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1) because the numbered interrogatories contained multiple discrete subparts. Niantic argued that the interrogatories sought relevant facts and that its 18 numbered interrogatories each addressed a single topic. Alternatively, Niantic asked for permission to serve additional interrogatories.

Analysis

The court found Interrogatory Nos. 9, 11, 12, 13, and 16 relevant and proportional for the reasons Niantic gave. NantWorks did not contest the relevance or proportionality of Nos. 10, 14, 15, or 17. The court also rejected NantWorks’s argument that the interrogatories were cumulative.

The court denied the motion to compel as to Interrogatory No. 8, which asked NantWorks to explain its basis under Rule 11 for continuing to prosecute the case. The court said discovery concerning Rule 11 motions is generally allowed only in extraordinary circumstances and found no extraordinary circumstances here.

The court also denied the motion to compel as to Interrogatory No. 18, which asked NantWorks to identify entities with financial or contingent interests in the case, including contingent-fee interests and litigation-funding agreements. NantWorks had already filed a certification of interested entities. The court stated that fee and litigation-funding agreements are generally discoverable only when there is a specific, articulated reason to suspect bias or conflicts of interest, and found no such basis on the record.

The court did not decide whether Niantic’s interrogatories contained discrete subparts. Instead, it granted Niantic’s alternative request for leave to serve more than 25 interrogatories. The court found that Interrogatory Nos. 8–18 addressed different subjects and that, except for Nos. 8 and 18, they were relevant, proportional, and otherwise consistent with the discovery rules. The court therefore granted leave to serve Interrogatory Nos. 9–17.

Disposition

Judge Laurel Beeler granted Niantic’s discovery motion as to Interrogatory Nos. 9–17 only. The motion was denied as to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 18. The order resolved ECF No. 95.