Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NETSKOPE, INC., Case No. 22-cv-01852-TLT (AGT)

Plaintiff,

DISCOVERY ORDER

v. Re: Dkt. No. 209

FORTINET, INC.,

Defendant.

Netskope requested production of certain emails sent or received by John Whittle, a Fortinet executive who has held both business and legal counsel roles. Netskope seeks dis- covery into Whittle’s internal communications pertaining to the patents at issue in this case, pre-litigation licensing negotiations with Netskope, and negotiations with other companies. Netskope asserts that these communications are relevant to Netskope’s affirmative defenses (such as unclean hands) and to the value of the patents. Fortinet has refused to produce the requested emails and instead offered to produce only emails sent externally regarding the relevant patents, Netskope, and the other compa- nies. The internal emails on those topics, Fortinet asserts, are either 1) privileged as attorney- client communications or attorney work product, because all of Whittle’s communications on those topics are inherently legal advice, or 2) irrelevant. Therefore, Fortinet asserts it would be unduly…