QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. BROADCOM CORPORATION, Defendant. BROADCOM CORPORATION, Counterclaimant, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Counterdefendant Case No. 05cv1392-B (BLM) United States District Court, S.D. California Filed August 14, 2006 Counsel Adam Arthur Bier, Bier Legal, Jason A. Yurasek, Perkins Coie LLP, San Francisco, CA, Barry Jerome Tucker, Foley & Lardner LLP, David E. Kleinfeld, Goodwin Procter LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart, Clapp, Hannink & Coveney, LLP, Randall Evan Kay, Jones Day, Brandon Hays Pace, Heller Ehrman LLP, Brooke Beros, Kathryn Bridget Riley, DLA Piper US, Heidi Maley Gutierrez, Higgs Fletcher and Mack, San Diego, CA, Christian E. Mammen, James R. Batchelder, Day Casebeer Madrid and Batchelder, Kevin Kook Tai Leung, Law Office of Kevin Kook Tai Leung, Cupertino, CA, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Heller Ehrman, Richard S. Taffet, Bingham McCutchen, Evan R. Chesler, Pro Hac Vice, Richard J. Stark, Cravath Swaine and Moore LLP, New York, NY, Nitin Subhedar, Jaideep Venkatesan, Heller Ehrman, Menlo Park, CA, Patrick Taylor Weston, Bingham McCutchen LLP, William F. Abrams, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiff. Alejandro Menchaca, Andrew B. Karp, Brian C. Bianco, Christopher N. George, Consuelo Erwin, George P. McAndrews, Joseph F. Harding, Leonard D. Conapinski, Matthew A. Anderson, Ronald H. Spuhler, Stephen F. Sherry, Thomas J. Wimbiscus, Jean Dudek Kuelper, Gregory C. Schodde, Pro Hac Vice, Lawrence M. Jarvis, Pro Hac Vice, Scott P. McBride, McAndrews Held and Malloy Ltd., Chicago, IL, Allen C. Nunnally, John S. Rhee, Joseph F. Haag, Louis W. Tompros, Richard W. O'Neill, Stephen M. Muller, Vinita Ferrera, Wayne L. Stoner, Daniel M. Esrick, Pro Hac Vice, John J. Regan, Pro Hac Vice, Kate Saxton, Pro Hac Vice, William F. Lee, Pro Hac Vice, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, James Sullivan McNeill, Dentons US LLP, Robert S. Brewer, Jr., Jones Day, San Diego, CA, James L. Quarles, III, Pro Hac Vice, William J. Kolasky, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Alina D. Eldred, Steven J. Kaiser, Mark W. Nelson, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton, Washington, DC, Maria Kathleen Vento, U.S. Attorney's Office, Charlotte, NC, Mark D. Selwyn, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendant Major, Barbara L., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL *1 On June 23, 2006, Defendant Broadcom Corporation's (“Broadcom”) counsel informed the Court of a discovery dispute regarding Plaintiff Qualcomm Incorporated's (“Qualcomm”) allegedly insufficient production of documents and information related to licensing. In response, Qualcomm claimed that it must obtain its licensees' consent before producing the requested information, and as such, argued that Broadcom's discovery is “overbroad and premature.” The Court authorized briefing, provided a July 28, 2006 hearing date, and took the briefing under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Accordingly, Broadcom timely filed the instant motion to compel on June 30, 2006. Doc. No. 194. Qualcomm filed its opposition on July 14, 2006. Broadcom filed a reply on July 21, 2006. Qualcomm submitted a supplemental opposition on August 7, 2006. Having reviewed the briefing submitted, and for the reasons set forth below, this Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Broadcom's motion to compel. Doc. No. 194. LEGAL STANDARD The threshold requirement of discoverability under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is whether the information sought is “relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) (1). To be discoverable, the information need not be admissible at trial if it “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. The relevance standard is thus commonly recognized as one that is necessarily broad in scope in order “to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Qppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (citation omitted). However broadly defined, relevancy is not without “ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947). Accordingly, district courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). District courts also have broad discretion to limit discovery. For example, a court may limit the scope of any discovery method if it determines that the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Similarly, district courts are directed to limit discovery where “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. A motion to compel is appropriate when a party fails to provide responses to interrogatories submitted under Federal Rule 33, or fails to produce relevant, non-privileged documents requested pursuant to Federal Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) (2) (B). A party's service of “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response is to be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). Prior to filing a motion to compel, counsel must meet and confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve the dispute informally. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B); see also CivLR 16.5(k) and 26.1(a). Should counsel determine that the matter cannot be resolved without the court's assistance, the movant must certify that it has complied with this meet and confer requirement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B). DISCUSSION A. The Stipulated Protective Order *2 On May 2, 2006-after extensive briefing by both sides-the Court entered the parties' proposed Stipulated Protective Order. Doc. No. 125. The protective order divides “protected information” into two categories: (1) confidential business information, or “information that a party or third party believes in good faith to be confidential or sensitive information including, but not limited to, trade secrets, research, design, development, financial, technical, marketing, planning, personal or commercial information ...,” and (2) outside attorneys' eyes only information, which is limited to source code and “documents related to current and future business plans or strategies.” Id. at ¶ 2. The protective order identifies those individuals with access to these types of protected information. Id. at ¶¶ 3-4. Among those individuals with access to “confidential business information” are select in-house litigation attorneys, specifically, Roger Martin of Qualcomm and Matthew Delgiorno of Broadcom. Id. at ¶ 4b. The protective order also provides guidelines for use and production of third party protected information. Id. at ¶ 16. For example, third parties may designate deposition transcripts and any documents or information they produce as “confidential business information” or “outside attorneys' eyes only information,” whether such information is produced voluntarily or under subpoena. Id. Third parties may also intervene to enforce the protective order's provisions. Id. In addition, the protective order specifies that it “shall not abrogate or diminish any contractual, statutory or other legal obligation or right of any party or person with respect to any [information designated in the two aforementioned categories].” Id. at ¶ 27. Finally, the protective order also provides detailed instructions regarding the limited use of information and documents produced in other litigations. Id. at ¶ 14. Specifically, the protective order invites a party's reproduction of documents produced in other actions, and provides that such reproduction can involve the re-use of confidentiality designations from the original actions, or the assignment of new designations as described above. Id. at ¶ 14a-b. Moreover, the protective order provides procedures through which parties may request the reproduction of such documents, as well as a timeline by which the producing party must object to such reproduction requests. Id. at ¶ 14c-e. B. Broadcom's Motion to Compel Broadcom seeks to compel supplemental discovery related to third party licenses, license negotiations, and other litigations involving the patents-in-suit. Def's Mem. at 2-5; Rogers Decl. Exs. 2-3. In particular, Broadcom requests that the Court enter an order requiring Qualcomm to respond fully to Interrogatory Numbers 16-20 and 39, and to produce documents responsive to Document Request Numbers 22-27, 33-36, 39-43, 60, and 81 within five (5) business days. Def's Mem. at 11. This Order will address each of these discovery requests, and the parties' arguments and objections related thereto, in turn. 1. Licenses Concerning the Patents-in-Suit Interrogatory Number 39 seeks the bates-number identification of “each entity that entered into a license agreement with Qualcomm that included a grant of patent rights between 1990 and 2006.” Rogers Decl. Ex. 2 at 21. The interrogatory also requests identification of the date, products covered, royalty rates or other economic consideration paid or received, rights licensed, and total consideration paid to or by Qualcomm to date under each identified license. Id. Document Request Number 33 calls for production of all documents “constituting or concerning any license, sub-license, settlement, covenant not to sue, or any other agreement under which Qualcomm or any other [entity] has granted or received any rights” concerning any Qualcomm patent-in-suit. Rogers Decl. Ex. 3 at 14-15. Document Request Number 34 calls for production of identical documents concerning any Qualcomm patent within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit,[1] or any related Qualcomm patents.[2] Id. at 15. *3 Document Request Numbers 35 and 36 call for production of documents “sufficient to identify each product sold and/or process performed” and “the remuneration Qualcomm receives for such sale or performance” for any Qualcomm patent-in-suit, any Qualcomm patent within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, and any related Qualcomm patents. Id. at 15. Document Request Number 42 calls for production of all documents “regarding any and all licensing customs, practices, or policies of Qualcomm.” Id. at 16. Document Request Number 60 calls for production of all documents “concerning any alleged reasonable royalty for any Accused Broadcom Product, Process, or Instrumentality,” and provides seven categories of information allegedly incorporated within such documents. Id. at 19. a. Broadcom's Discovery Requests are Overbroad As a preliminary matter, the Court finds Broadcom's discovery requests remarkably overbroad. For example, as written, Interrogatory Number 39 would require Qualcomm to provide a comprehensive list of each and every entity with which it entered into a license agreement over the course of the last sixteen years, regardless of whether that entity was granted rights with respect to the Qualcomm patents-in-suit. Document Request Number 34 seeks production of, among other things, all license agreements for all “related” Qualcomm patents, the definition of which, when taken to its logical conclusion, could potentially require Qualcomm to produce licensing documents for its entire patent portfolio. Document Request Number 36 seeks documents identifying all products sold and processes performed under license of a similarly defined group of patents. Because Qualcomm limits its patent infringement allegations to a total of seven patents, see First Amend. Cmplt. [Doc. No. 43], such wide-sweeping requests are unsupportable. As such, to the extent that the Court orders Qualcomm to provide supplemental responses to these requests, see infra, the requests will be significantly limited in scope. Specifically, Interrogatory Number 39 is hereby limited to those entities to which Qualcomm licensed rights to any of the Qualcomm patents-in-suit between 1993 and the present.[3] Document Request Numbers 34 and 36 are hereby limited to license agreements concerning Qualcomm patents within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, or any Qualcomm patent whose language expressly states that it is related to the Qualcomm patents-in-suit. b. Third Party Confidentiality Objections Although Qualcomm's objections to these discovery requests include overbreadth, undue burden, irrelevance, attorney-client privilege, and the work product doctrine, Qualcomm primarily resists the immediate production of its licenses on third party confidentiality grounds. Venkatesan Decl. Ex. 2 at 37-38; see also Plf's Opp. at 7-8. Qualcomm asserts that although it has diligently sought, and in some instances obtained, licensee consent, it needs additional time to complete this process before it can produce such licenses. Plf's Opp. at 2, 7-8; Venkatesan Decl. Exs. 5-8 (attaching correspondence from Qualcomm licensees authorizing production either pursuant to the protective order or for review by outside attorneys only); Plf's Supp. Opp. at 1 (summarizing licensees' objections to production of license agreements to Broadcom's in-house counsel). Moreover, if ordered to produce responsive licenses, Qualcomm asks that such licenses be designated “outside attorneys' eyes only information,” thereby barring Matthew Delgiorno, Broadcom's in-house counsel, from reviewing them under the protective order. Plf's Opp. at 8-11. In support, Qualcomm asserts that Delgiorno filed misleading declarations in Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 06cv660-B (AJB) (the “660 case”), declarations in which Delgiorno allegedly downplayed the nature and extent of his knowledge of and participation in the alleged cover up of Broadcom's acquisition and dissemination of Qualcomm trade secrets. Id. at 8-9. Given Delgiorno's alleged conduct in the 660 case and the production concerns expressed by its licensees, Qualcomm contends that its licenses merit the increased protection provided by an “outside attorneys' eyes only information” designation. Id. at 11. *4 Broadcom argues that Qualcomm's reliance on third party confidentiality obligations is an improper delay tactic, and that Qualcomm has had sufficient time to obtain its licensees' consent.[4] Def's Mem. at 9-10. Broadcom also argues that its discovery requests are relevant to Qualcomm's reasonable royalty damages claim and its own license defense. Id. at 6-9; Def's Reply at 1-7. In particular, Broadcom contends that its discovery will yield information bearing on at least three factors used to assess reasonable royalty under Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), modified and aff'd, 446 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. 1971), namely, royalties received for the patents-in-suit and comparable technology, licensing policies and marketing programs, and the portion of profits the industry customarily attributes to the subject technology. Def's Mem. at 6-7 (citing Dow Chem. Co. v. Mee Indus., Inc., 341 F.3d 1370, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (instructing that when evaluating reasonable royalty claims, district courts should apply the Georgia-Pacific factors)). Broadcom maintains that without this information, its damages expert will not be able to conduct a meaningful assessment of Qualcomm's reasonable royalty claims. Def's mem. at 6-7; Wagner Decl. at ¶¶ 9-13. Similarly, Broadcom declares that its discovery of unredacted licenses for the Qualcomm patents-in-suit is critical to its license defense. Def's Mem. at 8. In a final note, Broadcom asserts Qualcomm's request that Delgiorno be denied access to licensing documents is an attempt to re-litigate the competitive decision-making issue resolved by the Court prior to entry of the protective order. Def's Reply at 7. According to Broadcom, Qualcomm supports its request with improper, unsubstantiated, and inflammatory accusations, all of which gave rise to the 660 case from which this Court has recused. Id. Broadcom denies the allegations, reasons that such claims seek to distract the Court from Qualcomm's own delay in responding to routine discovery, and insists that the protective order expressly permits Delgiorno access to licensing documents and information. Id. at 8-9 “Ninth Circuit precedent strongly favors disclosure to meet the needs of parties in pending litigation.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Olympic Ref. Co. v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260, 264 (9th Cir. 1964) (explaining that the purpose of federal discovery is to force disclosure subject to reasonable restrictions)). As a general proposition, confidentiality alone is not an objection which unilaterally precludes discovery. Fed. Open Mkt. Comm. of Fed. Reserve Sys. v. Merrill, 443 U.S. 340, 362 (1979) (clarifying that confidentiality does not equate to privilege). In other words, “[i]f entities involved in litigation were able to shroud all of their documents with ‘confidentiality agreements’ which prevented their disclosure, our system of discovery would become nothing but a sham.” RLI Ins. Co. v. Commercial Money Ctr., Inc., No. 02-192, 2002 WL 32081854, at *5-6 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2002) (Battaglia, J.) (citing Med. Waste Techs. v. Alexian Bros. Med. Ctr., No. 97-3805, 1998 WL 387706, at *6 (N.D. Ill. 1998)). Nonetheless, the initiation of a lawsuit does not grant a plaintiff the right to peruse entirely unchecked the private files of any entity it chooses; courts must appropriately balance litigation goals with such entities' rights. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 198 F.R.D. 525, 528 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (requiring a showing of “good cause,” or a factual basis of potential harm to justify the court's protection); Beckman Indus., 966 F.2d at 475. As Broadcom correctly argues, these discovery requests are relevant to a Georgia-Pacific reasonable royalty analysis and Broadcom's license defense, and thus seek discoverable information. The terms of Qualcomm's license agreements and related licensing documents, subject to the limited scope described above, will identify licensees, provide royalties and other fees paid and received, define the nature and scope of the license conveyed, and illuminate Qualcomm's established licensing policies and marketing program, all of which are information essential to Broadcom's analysis of Qualcomm's reasonable royalty damages claim. See Georgia-Pacific, 318 F. Supp. at 1120. A detailed identification of such licenses could also lend support to Broadcom's license defense to Qualcomm's infringement allegations. As such, Broadcom is entitled to review documents and information responsive to these requests, and must be provided same in unredacted form as soon as possible. Indeed, given the significant passage of time since these discovery requests were initially propounded, and considering the Court's recent order requiring all third party objections to be filed by August 7, 2006, see Doc. No. 213, the Court declines to provide Qualcomm with any additional time to secure from its licensees either consent or objections to such production. *5 With regard to the appropriate designation of such licenses under the protective order, the Court hereby requires the agreements to be designated “outside attorneys' eyes only information.” The basis for this additional requirement is threefold. First, as noted above, the protective order divides competitively sensitive information into two specific categories, neither of which, by their definitions, clearly encompass license agreements. Doc. No. 125 at ¶ 2. For example, various aspects of license agreements could be considered financial or marketing related, thus meriting the “confidential business information” designation, whereas license agreements in general could be considered related to current or future business plans or strategies, and as such, could legitimately fall within the “outside attorneys' eyes only information” category. Second, to date, at least six Qualcomm licensees have predicated their consent to production of license agreements on an “outside attorneys' eyes only” designation, arguing that release of license agreement terms to Broadcom employees “could lead to the loss of business, business opportunities, and highly valuable trade secrets.” Venkatesan Decl. Ex. 5; see also Plf's Supp. Opp. at 1 (declaring that disclosure of license terms “would provide Broadcom with insight into [third party licensees'] licensing strategies that would severely prejudice [their] license negotiations with Broadcom and/or give Broadcom an unfair competitive advantage”). Third, Qualcomm supports its request for the more restrictive designation by alleging that Broadcom's in-house counsel improperly handled Qualcomm's competitively sensitive material in the 660 case. Plf's Opp. at 8-11. While the Court makes no finding with regard to Broadcom's in-house counsel's conduct, the Court acknowledges the possibility of potential injury to Qualcomm that disclosure under the “confidential business information” designation could entail. In light of these allegations, and so as to avoid the compromise of any competitively sensitive, confidential information, the Court hereby orders Qualcomm to produce all responsive license agreements with an “outside attorneys' eyes only information” designation. In conclusion, Broadcom's motion to compel supplemental responses to Interrogatory Number 39 and the production of documents responsive to Document Requests Numbers 33-36, 42, and 60 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. In response to Interrogatory Number 39, Qualcomm is hereby ordered to identify each entity with which it entered into a license agreement between 1993 and the present that included a grant of rights embodied in any of the Qualcomm patents-in-suit. In addition, Qualcomm is hereby ordered to produce any and all documents responsive to Document Request Number 33, 35, 42, and 60, designating any license agreements produced as “outside attorneys' eyes only information.” With regard to Document Request Numbers 34 and 36, Qualcomm is further ordered to produce any and all responsive documents concerning those Qualcomm patents within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, or any Qualcomm patent whose language expressly states that it is related to the Qualcomm patents-in-suit. As before, any license agreements produced in response to these requests must be designated as “outside attorneys' eyes only information.” 2. Licenses Related to “Wireless Communication Technology” Interrogatory Number 17 requests the identification of all Qualcomm licenses “relating to (a) wireless communication technology and/or (b) any technology used or usable in conjunction with wireless communication technology.” Rogers Decl. Ex. 2 at 13. Document Request Number 41 seeks production of all documents “constituting or concerning [and including] licenses to (a) wireless communication technology and/or (b) any technology used or usable in conjunction with wireless communication technology.” Id. Ex. 3 at 16. Document Request Number 43 seeks production of all documents “regarding licensing customs, practices, or policies in the wireless communication industry.” Id. Qualcomm objects to these discovery requests as irrelevant and overbroad, claiming that Broadcom has failed to demonstrate how licenses covering patents in the immense category of “wireless communication technology” are comparable to the Qualcomm patents-in-suit. Plf's Opp. at 5 (insisting that unlike in Fresenius Med. Care Holding Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, 224 F.R.D. 644 (N.D. Cal. 2004), Broadcom has not shown how other patents are comparable to the technology at issue). Qualcomm contends that any complete response to these discovery requests would entail the disclosure of its entire licensing portfolio, and as such, claims the requests are improper. Id. Broadcom responds that “wireless communication technology” licenses are comparable to licenses covering the patents-in-suit because the patents-in-suit all concern methods, apparatuses, and systems that allegedly improve the performance of wireless communication devices and networks, in other words, the “design” of wireless technology. Def's Reply at 3-4; see also id. at 5 (distinguishing Caliper Techs. Corp. v. Molecular Devices Corp., 213 F.R.D. 555, 561 (N.D. Cal. 2003), where license agreements covering patents not litigated were not discoverable because they had nothing to do with the technology involved in the patents-in-suit). Broadcom also notes that such licenses are relevant to a Georgia-Pacific reasonable royalty analysis. Id. at 4-5. *6 The Court finds Broadcom's discovery requests overbroad as written, and seeking irrelevant information. While neither party can dispute that the patent rights at issue bear upon “wireless communication technology,” both parties manage patent portfolios covering a wide range of advanced wireless communication systems and processes, all of which arguably fall within this extensive category. As a result, such discovery requests call for documents and information that could relate to any number of business collaborations or proposals that potentially encompass extensive rights to countless patents in Qualcomm's portfolio. See Caliper Techs. Corp., 213 F.R.D. at 561. Thus, the majority of such licensing documents would be unrelated to the specific technology identified in the Qualcomm patents-in-suit. Moreover, while the Court recognizes that some of these “wireless communication technology” documents could be relevant to a Georgia-Pacific analysis, it is more likely that the majority of such documents would be irrelevant to the claims at issue. Id. Given the potential breadth of these requests, and due to both parties' failure to propose a narrower, more focused subset of “other licenses” necessary to Broadcom's reasonable royalty analysis, the Court hereby DENIES Broadcom's motion to compel responses to these discovery requests as overbroad and irrelevant. 3. Licensing Negotiations Interrogatory Number 16 seeks both identification and description of “each offer, discussion, and/or negotiation to license (in part or in whole) any” of the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, any Qualcomm patents within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, or any related Qualcomm patents. Rogers Decl. Ex. 2 at 13. Document Request Number 39 seeks production of all documents “constituting or concerning negotiations, discussions, consideration and/or communications about a potential, prospective, or actual license or similar agreement under any” of the Qualcomm patents-in-suit. Id. Ex. 3 at 15. Document Request Number 40 seeks production of identical documents for Qualcomm patents within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, or any related Qualcomm patents. Id. at 16. Qualcomm contends that licensing negotiation documents are irrelevant to the reasonable royalty analysis contemplated by Georgia-Pacific. Def's Opp. at 6 (noting that such documents are not included among the Georgia-Pacific factors). Qualcomm also claims that the breadth of its licensing portfolio, and therefore, the breadth of the responsive licensing negotiation documents and information related thereto, render these requests unduly burdensome. Id. Broadcom counters that licensing negotiation documents are relevant to liability issues-not a reasonable royalty analysis-because they will contain information regarding the scope of Qualcomm's patents. Plf's Mem. at 8-9; Plf's Reply at 6. Broadcom reasons that such information could estop various claims that Qualcomm is currently pursuing. Plf's Mem. at 8-9. Broadcom's arguments are well taken. Licensing negotiation information and documents are relevant to liability in that they could incorporate assertions made by Qualcomm to licensees and potential licensees summarizing Qualcomm's view of the benefits of acquiring third party intellectual property rights. Similarly, such documents could reveal the boundaries of licensees' and potential licensees' grant of patent rights, as described by Qualcomm. As such, the Court hereby orders Qualcomm to provide supplemental answers and to produce documents responsive to these requests, with one limitation. Both Interrogatory Number 16 and Document Request Number 40 seek information for the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, Qualcomm patents within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, and any related Qualcomm patents, as those terms are defined by Broadcom. See supra text accompanying notes 1-2. For the reasons explained above, Broadcom's definitions render these requests impermissibly overbroad. Accordingly, Interrogatory Number 16 and Document Request Number 40 are hereby limited to information and documents concerning Qualcomm patents within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, or any Qualcomm patent whose language expressly states that it is related to the Qualcomm patents-in-suit. *7 In conclusion, Broadcom's motion to compel supplemental responses to Interrogatory Number 16 and Document Request Numbers 39-40 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. In response to Interrogatory Number 16, Qualcomm is hereby ordered to identify licenses and/or license negotiations concerning the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, Qualcomm patents within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, or any Qualcomm patent whose language expressly states that it is related to the Qualcomm patents-in-suit. In addition, Qualcomm is hereby ordered to produce any and all documents responsive to Document Request Number 39. With regard to Document Request Number 40, Broadcom is further ordered to produce any and all responsive documents concerning Qualcomm patents within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, or any Qualcomm patents whose language expressly states that it is related to the Qualcomm patents-in-suit. Again, any license agreement produced in response to Document Request Numbers 39-40 should be designated “outside attorneys' eyes only information.” 4. “Other Litigation” Filings and Other Accusations of Infringement Interrogatory Number 18 seeks a detailed identification of all other litigations either involving the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, Qualcomm patents within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, or any related Qualcomm patent, or in which the subject matter of these types of patents either was or is at issue. Rogers Decl. Ex. 2 at 13-14. Interrogatory Number 19 seeks a detailed identification of all accusations of infringement—not resulting in litigation—made by Qualcomm with regard to these same types of Qualcomm patents. Id. at 14. Interrogatory Number 20 seeks a detailed identification of all third party allegations—not resulting in litigation—that this same group of Qualcomm patents are invalid or unenforceable. Id. at 14-15. Document Request Numbers 22 and 23 seek production of all documents and things produced by Qualcomm or by any other entity (including third parties) during the course of an “Other Litigation.”[5] Rogers Decl. Ex. 3 at 13. Broadcom defines such “Other Litigation” as “any litigation or proceedings of any kind commenced by or against Qualcomm or any other [entity] other than Broadcom relating to any of the Qualcomm [patents-in-suit], the Qualcomm Patent Family Tree, or the Related Qualcomm Patents.” Id. at 8-9 (providing specific examples of four such “other litigations”). Document Request Number 24 seeks production of all documents “constituting or concerning communications, discussions, or analyses within Qualcomm that relate in any way to an Other Litigation or any fact or issue litigated in or concerning such litigation.” Id. at 13. Document Request Number 25 seeks all documents “concerning the infringement or non-infringement by any party to an Other Litigation (including without limitation, all allegations, contentions, denials, investigations, examination, or studies relating to such infringement or non-infringement).” Id. Document Request Number 26 calls for production of “all documents referring to or concerning Other Litigation,” to the extent not previously requested. Id. Document Request Number 27 calls for production of “all documents concerning any legal proceeding or threatened legal proceeding” involving the three types of Qualcomm patents noted above.[6] Id. at 14. a. Meet and Confer Obligations *8 Qualcomm argues that Broadcom failed to meet and confer with regard to these discovery requests. Plf's Opp. at 11-12. Qualcomm therefore contends that the instant motion, at least with respect to these “other litigation” documents and information, is premature. Id.; see also Venkatesan Decl. Ex. 1 at 5 (inviting Broadcom to meet and confer further regarding documents from other litigations). Qualcomm does not address the merits of these requests. Broadcom denies having failed to satisfy its meet and confer obligations. Def's Reply at 10; see also Venkatesan Decl. Ex. 20 at 229-30 (rejecting Qualcomm's proposed stipulation because, among other things, it failed to address documents from prior litigations). Broadcom insists that it “spent weeks in the meet-and-confer process,” and filed its motion only after Qualcomm refused to produce any additional documents subject to this motion. Def's Reply at 10. Broadcom also underlines that the requested discovery is relevant to both liability and damages, assertions which it emphasizes Qualcomm does not contest. Id. As noted above, the Local Rules unambiguously provide that the Court shall entertain no motion to compel unless counsel have previously met and conferred concerning the disputed issues, see CivLR 26.1(a), and that counsel may under no circumstances satisfy its meet and confer obligations by written correspondence. See CivLR 16.5(k). As such, any overtures by the parties to their written meet and confer efforts are unavailing. Nevertheless, given the parties' conflicting representations, the extent of the parties' meet and confer efforts on these issues is unclear. On this record, therefore, the Court finds it inappropriate to decline to entertain Broadcom's motion on this basis. b. Objections Raised in Qualcomm's Discovery Responses (i) Interrogatory Numbers 18-20 To date, Qualcomm has asserted objections to Interrogatory Numbers 18 through 20 on grounds of vagueness, overbreadth, privilege, third party confidentiality, irrelevance, and undue burden. Rogers Decl. Ex. 1 at 26-34. Notwithstanding these objections, Qualcomm has further responded to these interrogatories by (1) identifying five other litigations by name, listing the Qualcomm patents asserted therein, and attaching the docket for each litigation identified (Interrogatory Nubmer 18), (2) representing that it would provide a bates-number identification for those documents “constituting communications accusing third parties of infringing one or more of the Qualcomm patents-in-suit or patents in the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, to the extent that it produces such documents (Interrogatory Number 19), and (3) listing two cases in which other entities contested the validity and enforceability of various Qualcomm patents (Interrogatory Number 20). Id. Where other litigations involve the Qualcomm patents-in-suit and similar accusations of infringement, invalidity, or unenforceability concerning these patents, these other litigations are relevant to the liability and damages issues in this case. As such, these interrogatories seek discoverable information. Indeed, as noted, Qualcomm provided at least some such responsive information. Nonetheless, because these interrogatories seek the identification of other litigations concerning any “related” Qualcomm patent, they are overbroad for the reasons articulated above with regard to similarly worded discovery requests. Consequently, the Court hereby limits the scope of these interrogatories to call only for the identification of information concerning the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, Qualcomm patents within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, or any Qualcomm patent whose language expressly states that it is related to the Qualcomm patents-in-suit. In conclusion, Broadcom's motion to compel supplemental responses to Interrogatory Numbers 18 through 20 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent that Qualcomm has not fully responded to these interrogatories, Qualcomm is hereby ordered to provide supplemental responses, limiting responsive information to other litigations concerning the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, Qualcomm patents within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, or any Qualcomm patent whose language expressly states that it is related to the Qualcomm patents-in-suit. (ii) Document Request Numbers 22-27 and 81 *9 Qualcomm intones a familiar litany of objections to Document Requests 22 through 27 and 81, including vagueness, overbreadth, undue burden, irrelevance, privilege, third party confidentiality, and as improperly calling for disclosure of documents in violation of protective orders entered in other litigations. Venkatesan Decl. Ex. 2 at 31-35, 75. Qualcomm declined to produce documents responsive to each of these discovery requests on these grounds, with the exception of Document Request Number 23. Id. In response to Document Request Number 23, Qualcomm represented that it would produce “responsive, non-sealed documents filed with the Court” in other litigations following the entry of a mutually agree upon protective order. Id. at 32. Although a protective order was entered in this case as long ago as May 3, 2006 [Doc. No. 125], Qualcomm appears to have produced no such documents.[7] Again, to the extent that these other litigation documents concern the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, Qualcomm patents within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, or any Qualcomm patents whose language expressly states that it is related to the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, the facts underlying such previous litigations are relevant to the claims and defenses raised in this case. Moreover, prior deposition testimony given by these patents' inventors could be particularly relevant to Broadcom's understanding of the nature and scope of the Qualcomm patents at issue. Accordingly, the Court hereby requires Qualcomm to review and produce all non-privileged documents responsive to these requests. If necessary, these documents should be designated as either “confidential business information” or “outside attorneys' eyes only information,” as these terms are defined in the protective order. Again, any license agreements should be designated “outside attorneys' eyes only information” as explained above. Finally, should Qualcomm wish to withhold any documents on privilege grounds, the Court hereby orders that it provide a privilege log that satisfies the requirements enunciated in In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Johnson & Johnston v. R.E. Serv. Co., No. 03-2549, 2004 WL 3174428, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2004). In conclusion, Broadcom's motion to compel supplemental responses to Document Request Numbers 22 through 27 and 81 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Qualcomm is hereby ordered to produce responsive, nonprivileged documents from other litigations concerning the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, Qualcomm patents within the same family tree as the Qualcomm patents-in-suit, or any Qualcomm patent whose language expressly states that it is related to the Qualcomm patents-in-suit. If necessary, these documents should be marked as appropriate per the protective order's confidentiality designations. In addition, any license agreement produced must be designated “outside attorneys' eyes only information.” Finally, to the extent that Qualcomm withholds documents on privilege grounds, Qualcomm is further ordered to provide a thorough privilege log. CONCLUSION *10 Based on the Court's review of the briefing submitted, and for the foregoing reasons, Broadcom's motion to compel is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Doc. No. 194. Subject to the production limitations described herein, Qualcomm is hereby ordered to provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory Numbers 16, 18-20, and 39, and to produce documents responsive to Document Requests 22-27, 33-36, 39-40, 42, 60, and 81 on or before August 25, 2006. IT IS SO ORDERED. COPY TO: HONORABLE RUDI M. BREWSTER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ALL COUNSEL Footnotes [1] In its motion to compel, Broadcom explains that those patents within the same “family tree” encompass “any patent that descends from the same original application from which the patent-in-suit also descends.” Def's Mem. at 4. [2] Broadcom defines a “Related Qualcomm Patent” as follows: any United States patent or patent application for which any applicant is also a named inventor on any Qualcomm Patent and/or which concerns the same or similar subject matter as any Qualcomm Patent, as well as any continuation in part, divisional, provisional, reexamination, reissue, or any other patent or patent application (including rejected, abandoned, or pending applications) derived in whole or in part from said applications, and all foreign counterpart patents or patent applications (including rejected, abandoned, or pending applications). Any request for documents that concerns the “Related Qualcomm Patents” is meant to cover the Related Qualcomm Patents as a whole plus each and every individual patent and/or patent application in the Related Qualcomm Patents. Rogers Decl. Ex. 3 at 7-8. [3] According to the First Amended Complaint, the earliest date on which Qualcomm was issued a patent for any of the Qualcomm patents-in-suit was October 26, 1993. See First Amend. Cmplt. at 2-3. [4] Broadcom underlines that this case was filed over one year ago and the discovery in question was initially served in mid-November 2005. Def's Mem. at 10; Def's Reply at 5. Moreover, Broadcom notes that despite having obtained consent from various third parties several weeks ago, Qualcomm has yet to produce licenses of any kind. Def's Reply at 3; see also Venkatesan Decl. Exs. 5-8. [5] Document Request Number 23 clarifies that such production should include: all documents served, filed, and/or exchanged, including without limitation: all pleadings; all applications, motions, supporting documents and exhibits; all written discovery requests and responses thereto; all privilege logs; all deposition, trial, hearing, or other testimony; all deposition, trial, hearing or other exhibits; all expert reports and materials; all memoranda and points of authorities, including all supporting documents and exhibits; all rulings or orders; and all hearing transcripts. Rogers Decl. Ex. 3 at 13. [6] Finally, Document Request Number 81 calls for the production of “all documents constituting, concerning, or relating to any Broadcom Interrogatory and/or answer thereto,” to the extent not produced in response to all other document requests. Rogers Decl. Ex. 3 at 23. [7] Qualcomm's failure to produce these documents is suspect, especially given arguments it made in relation to its motion for a protective order barring cross-use of information from related actions. Doc. No. 48. In support of that motion, Qualcomm represented: ...if Broadcom is aware that Qualcomm-produced information from other cases is or may be relevant to this action, it can simply request that information through discovery in this case. Qualcomm has stated that it does not object to (a) such requests by Broadcom that Qualcomm re-produce documents in one action that have previously been produced in another action, or (b) Broadcom's production of relevant documents in multiple actions using the same confidentiality markings and Bates-numbering scheme, so long as there is a clear record of what documents have been produced in which cases. Id. at 11. In light of these representations, Qualcomm's seemingly ongoing objections to these discovery requests, or in the very least, its delay in production, is perplexing.