*1 On November 29, 2022, Teradyne, Inc. (“Teradyne” or “Plaintiff”) filed an Application to File its Letter Brief in Support of its Motion to Compel substantive responses to Interrogatory Nos. 21 and 22 (“Motion to Compel” or “MTC”) under seal, as well as a redacted version of its MTC. Electronic Case Filing Numbers (“ECF Nos.”) 153 and 154. On December 5, 2022, the Court entered an Order allowing Teradyne to file its MTC under seal, ECF No. 161, which the Court accepted on December 6, 2022. ECF No. 162. The same day, Astronics Test Systems, Inc. (“Astronics” or “Defendant”) filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (“Opposition” or “Opp'n”). ECF No. 163, Opp'n.

After reviewing the parties' arguments, for the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.

A. Procedural History

On March 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint (“Complaint”), ECF No. 1, Complaint, and on June 15, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (“MTD”), ECF No. 36, MTD. On August 7, 2020, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (“Order re MTD”). ECF No. 53, Order re MTD. On August 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 58, FAC. On September 11, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC (“MTD FAC”). ECF No. 62, MTD FAC. On November 6, 2020, the Court entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the FAC (“Order re MTD FAC”). ECF No. 67, Order re MTD FAC.

On November 23, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer to the FAC and Counterclaim against Plaintiff (“Answer & Counterclaim”). ECF No. 71, Answer & Counterclaim. On December 11, 2020, the Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order. ECF No. 73. On December 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Answer to Defendant's Counterclaims to the FAC. ECF No. 74. On March 25, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. ECF No. 80. After the parties filed briefs on the issue, the Court entered its Final Ruling on Claim Construction on June 29, 2021. ECF No. 103. On August 26, 2021, the Court entered an Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Stay the litigation pending the resolution of an inter partes review instituted by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”). ECF No. 121. On August 17, 2022, the Court entered a Scheduling Order (“Scheduling Order”) that set December 20, 2022 as the close of fact discovery. ECF No. 136, Scheduling Order at 1.

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) bringing claims for copyright infringement under federal law and inducing breach of contract and interference with contractual relations under California law based on Defendant's alleged unauthorized copying and use of Plaintiff's copyrighted works. ECF No. 140, SAC at 2. On September 1, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer to the SAC (“Answer to SAC”) asserting, inter alia, that Plaintiff's copyright claim fails because Defendant has not infringed the copyrights at issue, the infringement claim is barred by the fair use doctrine, and that Plaintiff's state law claims are preempted by the Copyright Act. ECF No. 142, Answer to SAC at 12.

*2 On November 17, 2022, the Court held a video conference regarding numerous discovery issues pertaining to requests for production (“RFPs”), requests for admission (“RFAs”), and interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff. See ECF No. 147. On November 22, 2022, the Court entered an Order Granting Extension of Procedural Schedule (“Revised Scheduling Order”) moving, inter alia, the close of written discovery to December 20, 2022—but noting that written discovery that is the subject of a motion to compel granted by the Court may still be produced after this date—and the close of fact discovery for depositions to February 28, 2023. ECF No. 149, Revised Scheduling Order at 2-3.

The same day, the Court held a continued video conference regarding the parties' discovery disputes, at which the parties indicated that they had resolved their issues with respect to the RFAs but were at an impasse regarding Interrogatories No. 21 and No. 22 (the “Interrogatories”). See ECF No. 150.

B. The Parties' Arguments

In the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff makes the following arguments as to why the Court should compel Defendant to provide substantive responses to the Interrogatories. As an initial matter, Plaintiff notes that it has proposed narrowing the scope of the Interrogatories as follows:

ECF No. 162, MTC at 2. Defendant has agreed to provide responses for the Asserted Copyrights at issue in this action, but “rejected the remainder of Teradyne's proposal.” Id. This dispute, thus, “concerns whether [Defendant] should be compelled to identify its copying of, and the [Astronics] products that copy, (i) Teradyne software for the M9-Series, Di-Series, and L-Series, including TPS Converter Studio (“Teradyne Software”) and (ii) Teradyne documentation for the Asserted Copyrights and for Teradyne Software for the M9-Series, Di-Series, and L-Series, including TPS Converter Studio (“Teradyne Documentation”).[1] Id. at 2-3.

First, Plaintiff argues that the information requested in the Interrogatories is relevant both to its “claims of copyright infringement and its state law” contract claims. Id. at 3. For the copyright claims, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant copied proprietary code from the Asserted Copyrights; thus, to the extent Defendant copied other portions of the Teradyne Software or Teradyne Documentation, “any such copying may help establish direct copying of the Asserted Copyrights, indirect copying of those works (access and substantial similarity), and/or willful copying” and may undermine Defendant's fair use defense. Id. at 4 (citing B&P Littleford, LLC v. Prescott Mach., LLC, No. 1:20-CV-13025, 2022 WL 625069 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2022)).

*3 Plaintiff argues that because Plaintiff's software includes, but is broader than, the Asserted Copyrights, evidence of Defendant's intent to copy or copying of the Teradyne Software may help prove intent to copy the Asserted Copyrights as well. Id. Similarly, Plaintiff argues that because the Teradyne Documentation “includes selections of the code from the Asserted Copyrights” and explanations for how to write test programs used with the Asserted Copyrights, evidence of Defendant copying the Teradyne Documentation could help show Defendant's copying of the Asserted Copyrights.[2] Id. Plaintiff further argues that Defendant's responses to the Interrogatories may also help identify copying of other copyrighted Teradyne works, which would be “directly relevant” to Plaintiff's copyright claims. Id. at 5.

For the state law claims, Plaintiff avers Defendant intentionally caused Plaintiff's customers to breach their Software License Agreements (“SLAs”) by impermissibly using Plaintiff's software with Defendant's test systems and equipment. Id. Defendant allegedly accomplished this scheme using proprietary information, including the Teradyne Software and Documentation. Id. Thus, information regarding Defendant copying the Teradyne Software and Documentation from shared customers or its predecessor companies is likely to provide evidence of how Defendant might have interfered with or induced breach of the SLAs. Id.

Second, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's “boilerplate” objections to the scope of the Interrogatories lack merit because Defendant has “provided no explanation for why or how this scope ... would be overly broad or unduly burdensome.” Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff asserts Defendant's objections to the definitions of Teradyne Software and Teradyne Documentation also fail to explain how such terms would be overly broad or unduly burdensome. Plaintiff argues that since it has shown that information sought in the Interrogatories is relevant and Defendant's objections are “boilerplate, vague, and unsupported,” the court should grant the Motion to Compel. Id. at 6 (citing Monster Energy Co. v. Vital Pharm., Inc., No. 18-cv-1882 JGB(SHKx), 2020 WL 6653583, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2020)).

Plaintiff argues it is not requesting that Defendant search “ all of its source code across all of its products”; rather, Defendant could, for example, take more narrow measures based on the specific predecessor companies Plaintiff indicated in the parties' discovery conferences. Id. (emphases in original). But even if Defendant did need to conduct a “more wide-ranging search,” this should not be considered unduly burdensome in light of the “potentially tens of millions of dollars” in controversy in this action. Id.

In the Opposition, Defendant argues that the Motion to Compel should be denied because: (1) copying of content other than the Asserted Copyrights is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action; (2) Defendant has already provided sufficient discovery on the alleged copying relative to the needs of this case, including over 21,000 documents and extensive responsive source code; and (3) requiring Defendant to investigate and identify in an interrogatory response all copying of software and the vaguely defined Teradyne Documentation is unduly burdensome. ECF No. 163, Opp'n at 1-2.

First, Defendant argues that the Interrogatories should be denied as an improper fishing expedition. Id. at 2. Defendant states that “[c]opying of works not protected by the Asserted Copyrights, not covered by identified copyright registrations, and for which [Plaintiff] has not alleged infringement is not relevant” to this case. Id. Plaintiff effectively admits that it is fishing for claims that are not in this case by speculating that responses to the Interrogatories “ ‘may identify copying of other copyrighted Teradyne works.’ ” Id. (citing ECF No. 162, MTC at 5).[3] Defendant disagrees with Plaintiff's “vague[ ]” assertions regarding the relevance of the Interrogatories. Copying “of works over which Teradyne has not asserted copyrights does not show access to, or similarity with, the copyrighted works that it has,” and Plaintiff's claim that “copying of other works shows ‘intent to copy’ the works that are actually at issue” is “improper speculation.” Id. at 3 (citing Teller v. Dogge, No. 2:12-cv-00591-JCM-GWF, 2013 WL 1501445, at *4 (D. Nev. Apr. 10, 2013) for the proposition that a fishing expedition to show a purported “pattern” of copying materials that are not at issue is irrelevant).

*4 Plaintiff's assertions regarding Defendant's alleged interference with Plaintiff's contractual relationships are “similarly attenuated,” and Plaintiff has not sufficiently explained how Defendant identifying copying of works not at issue in this action could show that it induced customers to breach SLAs with Plaintiff. Id. That identification of copying of Teradyne Documentation might show that Defendant “accomplished its scheme of inducing breach of contract by using confidential information” is, again, “pure speculation.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, Defendant argues that allowing Plaintiff to pursue this discovery would “improperly expand the scope of this case by adding swaths of irrelevant discovery, requiring additional cost and time to complete,” which is “particularly troublesome” given that written discovery is to close December 20, 2022. Id.

Second, Defendant argues that it should not be compelled to respond to the Interrogatories because it has already produced substantial discovery on Plaintiff's claims, including extensive code files, documents, and interrogatory responses on topics such as copying, access, substantial similarity, and inducing breach of contract. Id. at 4. Defendant has “identified the software and hardware that contain alleged copied source code from the Asserted Copyrights” and has produced, inter alia, the source code for all its products that may contain alleged copied source code from the Asserted Copyrights” and “documents related to the state law claims.” Id. Further, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to depose Defendant's witnesses about the identified topics. Id. Plaintiff's requests in the Interrogatories, as such, are “duplicative and not proportional to the needs of the case.” Id.

Finally, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's requests are vague and unduly burdensome for three reasons. First, regarding identification of source code beyond the Asserted Copyrights, Plaintiff has “not even produced all of the software” for the M9-, DI-, and L-Series; thus, Plaintiff “cannot reasonably search for this code, because it does not even know what the code is.” Id. at 4-5. Second, Plaintiff's definition of Teradyne Documentation is “circular and confusingly broad”; Plaintiff cannot determine what exactly Plaintiff claims was copied and Defendant “should not have to search its production and guess at what [Plaintiff] might claim was copied.” Id. at 5. Third, because of the parties' past collaborations, Defendant may have been given Teradyne code and documents that it is authorized to possess; Plaintiff “has equal (if not greater) knowledge of instances in which” it gave Defendant documents related to the M9-, Di-, and L-Series and asking Defendant to “identify all such documents in an interrogatory response” is unduly burdensome. Id.

A. General Legal Standards Regarding Discovery

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 26(b)(1) governs the scope of permissible discovery and provides:

Relevancy, for purposes of discovery, “has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Nguyen v. Lotus by Johnny Dung Inc., No. 8:17-cv-01317-JVS-JDE, 2019 WL 3064479, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2019) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “Generally, the purpose of discovery is to remove surprise from trial preparation so the parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute.” Duran v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 258 F.R.D. 375, 378 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

*5 Because discovery must be both relevant and proportional, the right to discovery, even plainly relevant discovery, is not limitless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Nguyen, 2019 WL 3064479, at *1. Discovery may be denied where: “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

“The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). The party opposing discovery then has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 07cv200 JM (PCL), 2009 WL 1390794, at * 1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009). “The party opposing discovery is ‘required to carry a heavy burden of showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Reece v. Basi, No. 2:11-CV-2712 TLN (AC), 2014 WL 2565986, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 6, 2014), aff'd, 704 F. App'x 685 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975)).

Finally, “[t]he district court enjoys broad discretion when resolving discovery disputes, which should be exercised by determining the relevance of discovery requests, assessing oppressiveness, and weighing these factors in deciding whether discovery should be compelled.” United States ex rel. Brown v. Celgene Corp., No. CV 10-3165 GHK (SS), 2015 WL 12731923, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2015) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

B. Interrogatory Requirements and Scope Under Rule 33

Rule 33 governs interrogatories to parties. The purpose of interrogatories is to limit and clarify the issues for the parties in preparation for further trial proceedings. See Soria v. Oxnard Sch. Dist. Bd. of Trustees, 488 F.2d 579, 587 (9th Cir. 1973). “An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). “The responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).

“If objections are made, the burden is on the interrogating party to move under Rule 37(a) for a court order compelling answers, in the course of which the court will pass on the objections. The change in the burden of going forward does not alter the existing obligation of an objecting party to justify his objections.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, Advisory Committee Notes 1970 Amendments, Subdivision (a)(3). Parties responding to interrogatories must do so “to the fullest extent possible” and “objections must be stated with specificity.” Celgene Corp., 2015 WL 12731923, at *4 (citations omitted).

C. Analysis

After careful review of the Motion to Compel, the Opposition, and relevant law, the Court finds that (1) Plaintiff has not met its burden of establishing that the information sought in the Interrogatories regarding the Teradyne Software and Teradyne Documentation is proportional to the needs of this case under Rule 26(b)(1); and (2) it can likely be obtained through more convenient, less burdensome methods. As such, the Motion to Compel fails and is denied.

*6 The information sought by the Interrogatories regarding the Teradyne Software and Documentation, though arguably relevant, is not proportional to the needs of the case for several reasons. First, it appears that the burden of responding to the Interrogatories for Defendant outweighs the purported benefit to Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff seems to request information related to the Teradyne Software and Documentation both to help strengthen its claims regarding the Asserted Copyrights and to search for evidence of copying of other copyrighted Teradyne works not currently identified or at dispute in this action. See ECF No. 162, MTC at 4-5. As for seeking evidence of potential copyright infringement not currently at issue, the Court need not allow Plaintiff to engage in a fishing expedition for new causes of action via interrogatories. See, e.g., Adamov v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP, No. 2:13-cv-01222-TLN-AC, 2017 WL 6558133, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2017) (denying a motion to compel where the request was a “fishing expedition” with a “minimally probative nature”); Hoffman v. Lassen Cnty., No. 2:15-cv-1382 DB P, 2017 WL 2311683, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2017) (“Discovery cannot be used to investigate theories and allegations that are [merely] speculation.”).

As for seeking evidence of copying of the Teradyne Software and Teradyne Documentation to help prove claims regarding the Asserted Copyrights, the Court finds Plaintiff's arguments largely unpersuasive and, at times, speculative. For example, the Court is unconvinced that evidence of Defendant's copying Teradyne Software, outside of the Asserted Copyrights, would tend to show that Defendant intentionally caused Plaintiff's customers to breach their SLAs. See ECF No. 162, MTC at 5. Further, as discussed later in this Order, Plaintiff has already obtained, or will soon obtain, material relevant to its claims regarding the Asserted Copyrights, Teradyne Software, and Teradyne Documentation. See ECF No. 162, MTC at 2, 4. Thus, the Court finds the likely benefit to Plaintiff from compelling responses to the Interrogatories to be unduly burdensome and duplicative of other, more appropriate, mechanisms to determine the extent of copying, if any.

Conversely, compelling Defendant to provide substantive responses to the Interrogatories outside of the Asserted Copyrights, the Court finds, would impose a fairly heavy burden. For one, the Interrogatories are broad; Interrogatory No. 22, for example, requests that Defendant identify “each instance” of Defendant's copying, “in whole or in part,” of the Asserted Copyrights, Teradyne Software and Teradyne Documentation. Especially in the form of an interrogatory response, investigating and producing such information would likely require a disproportionate amount of time and effort. Further, as Defendant argues, and which Plaintiff has not rebutted, Plaintiff has not produced all the software for the M9-, Di-, and L-Series, so Defendant does not know what that code includes; thus, it would be very difficult for Defendant to search for this allegedly copied source code beyond the Asserted Copyrights. See ECF No. 163, Opp'n at 5. Therefore, Defendant's burden in responding to the Interrogatories, when weighed against Plaintiff's potential gain, is disproportionate.

Second, Defendant responding to the Interrogatories does not preclude Plaintiff from resolving the issues at stake in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff seems, by its own admission, to have already obtained a great deal of information relevant to its claims. Plaintiff states, for example, that Defendant has already “admitted to copying Teradyne's source code contained in the Asserted Copyrights,” that Plaintiff has “identified extensive copying of the Asserted Copyrights in [Defendant's] source code,” and that Defendant's “production further confirms its copying of Teradyne Software and Teradyne Documentation.” ECF No. 162, MTC at 4 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff also states that Defendant has already agreed to provide substantive interrogatory responses regarding the Asserted Copyrights. Id. at 2. Defendant points out that it has produced “over 21,000 documents and extensive responsive source code, as well as a forthcoming interrogatory supplementation.” ECF No. 163, Opp'n at 1. And, as discussed in further detail in this Order, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to depose defense witnesses regarding alleged copying of the Teradyne Software and Documentation, as well as its contract claims. Thus, it seems that Plaintiff has already amassed information and potential evidence regarding both the Asserted Copyrights and the Teradyne Software and Documentation and will have the opportunity to further develop its factual allegations through more efficient means. As such, the Court finds that compelling responses to the Interrogatories is not imperative to resolving the issues at stake in this case and that this factor weighs in favor of denying the Motion to Compel.[4]

*7 Third, the discovery that Plaintiff seeks to compel is not proportional to the needs of this case because Plaintiff has, or will have, meaningful access to the relevant information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As Defendant points out, based on the parties' prior collaborations, Plaintiff likely has at least equal knowledge of the instances in which Plaintiff provided Defendant documents related to the M9-, Di-, and L-Series. ECF No. 163, Opp'n at 5. Further, Plaintiff appears to have already acquired information sufficient to support its claims regarding the Teradyne Software and Documentation. See ECF No. 162, MTC at 4 (Plaintiff stating that Defendant's production has “further confirm[ed] its copying of Teradyne Software and Teradyne Documentation”). And finally, Plaintiff has had the opportunity through RFPs, and will have the opportunity through depositions, to further advance its understanding of Defendant's alleged use of the Asserted Copyrights, Teradyne Software, and Teradyne Documentation. Thus, there is not a material asymmetry in the parties' access to relevant information, which the Court finds weighs in favor of denying the Motion to Compel.[5]

Even if the information sought by the Interrogatories, outside of the Asserted Copyrights, were relevant and proportional, it can be obtained in more convenient, less burdensome ways. For example, as Defendant points out, Plaintiff will have the opportunity in depositions to ask Defendant's witnesses about Defendant's alleged improper use of the Teradyne Software and Teradyne Documentation. Deposing a defense witness, for example, about whether or how Defendant obtained particular software from predecessor companies, or why Defendant chose to use particular selections of code in their products, would likely be more efficient than Defendant, in an interrogatory response, identifying “each instance of [Defendant's] copying, in whole or in part,” of the Teradyne Software and/or Teradyne Documentation. See Sillas v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 17-08691 FMO (AFMx), 2018 WL 10731133, at *5-7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2018) (denying motion to compel further responses to certain interrogatories that could be “explored more efficiently via specific deposition questions”).

Indeed, interrogatories may be the most burdensome and unnecessary method of seeking and producing information about Defendant's alleged copying of the Teradyne Software and Documentation. It would likely have been more efficient, for example, for Plaintiff to seek this information through RFPs, where Plaintiff prepared a specific list of what it believes may have been copied, and Defendant ran document searches either through agreed-upon electronic search terms or key words related to copying. Seeking the information through RFPs appears particularly appropriate here where, as Defendant argues, Plaintiff's definition of Teradyne Documentation is “broad” such that Defendant cannot readily determine what exactly Plaintiff claims was copied. See ECF No. 163, Opp'n at 5. While the scope of relevance is broad, discovery is not limitless. See Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Ultimately it is a plaintiff's responsibility to build and develop its case, and a defendant will not be compelled to answer an unclear interrogatory. See, e.g., Sattari v. Citi Mortg., No. 2:09-cv-00769-RLH-GWF, 2010 WL 4782133, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2010) (upholding objection to an “unclear” interrogatory and finding that a defendant “is not required to puzzle out what [a p]laintiff intended” to seek in an interrogatory).

Plaintiff cites Monster, 2020 WL 6653583, at *10 for the proposition that the Court should grant its Motion to Compel because Defendant's objections regarding the breadth and burden of the Interrogatories are vague and unsupported. See ECF No. 162, MTC at 6. This argument is unconvincing for multiple reasons. First, unlike in Monster, Plaintiff failed to carry its initial burden of showing that the information sought in the Interrogatories is proportional to the needs of this case. See Bluestone Innovations LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. C-13-01770 SI (EDL), 2013 WL 6354419, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013) (“The party moving to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party's objections lack merit.”); Monster, 2020 WL 665383, at *13 (finding that “[plaintiff's] Interrogatories 4, 7, and 8 seek relevant information from [defendant] regarding, at a minimum, [plaintiff's] false advertising claim and violation of the Lanham Act”). Second, Defendant's objections to the Interrogatories are not vague or boilerplate. Rather, Defendant raises specific concerns such as, for example, Defendant being unable to search for code that Plaintiff has not produced, and that the Interrogatories are unnecessarily duplicative given that Defendant has already “produced the source code for all of its products that may contain alleged copied source code from the Asserted Copyrights, source code found in employee custodial files, and over 21,000 documents and emails pursuant to Teradyne's discovery requests.” See ECF No. 163, Opp'n at 4-5.

*8 Thus, in sum, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it is entitled to the information sought in the Interrogatories regarding the Teradyne Software and Teradyne Documentation, and Defendant has shown that the discovery sought is unduly burdensome and duplicative of materials already provided. As such, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is DENIED.

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is DENIED and Defendant will not be required to provide further substantive responses to Interrogatory Nos. 21 and 22.

IT IS SO ORDERED.