Anyon Systems, Inc. v. Anyon Computing, Inc.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANYON SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANYON COMPUTING, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cv-01060-TLT (LJC)
NOTICE OF REFERRAL FOR
DISCOVERY AND ORDER
RESOLVING THE PARTIES’ JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER
Re: Dkt. Nos. 37–38
TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros for discovery. For all
future discovery disputes that the parties seek to resolve through this Court, the parties must
comply with the procedures set forth in the Civil Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Cisneros,
available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/ljc/. Please contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk at
ljccrd@cand.uscourts.gov with any administrative questions.
Having reviewed the parties’ joint discovery letter (Dkt. No. 37) and attachments, and
considered the relevant authorities, the Court issues the following order to resolve the parties’
disputes. The Court holds that based on System’s May 28, 2026 Request for Production No. 13, it
was entitled to the photographs in native format, because under Rule 34(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure “[i]f a request [for production] does not specify a form for producing
electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is
ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii).1
1 The Court notes that if the form of production was not specified in the request, Rule 34 states
that the “responding party must state the form or forms it intends to use.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
34(b)(2)(D). It appears that Computing endeavored to address production format issues earlier
when it proposed an ESI protocol to Systems on April 29, 2026. Dkt. No. 37-6. For some reason
Case 3:26-cv-01060-TLT Document 40 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Here, a native file would contain the metadata that is necessary to consider in assessing the
claimed first use of the ANYON mark, and a form that lacks the metadata is not “reasonably
usable” for purposes of this litigation.
Accordingly, by October 23, 2026, Computing shall produce the native files in its
possession, custody, or control for AC_000299, AC_002475, AC_002478–002484, AC_002488–
002492, AC_002495–002500, AC_002505–002506, and the photographs submitted as USPTO
specimens. The files must have their original metadata intact, and production must not depend on
an exchange of Systems’ files.
Because the first date of use of the mark is also relevant to Computing’s defense, and
Computing specified System’s device photos that it seeks in Jessica Cox’s October 6, 2026 email
correspondence, Systems shall similarly produce the native files for those photos in its possession,
custody, or control by October 23, 2026, unless the parties stipulate to a different date.
To ensure that the parties fulfill their duty under Rule 26(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to make a reasonable inquiry in preparing their productions, they each shall, for any
native file they cannot produce, serve a declaration under penalty of perjury that identifies the file,
the device or account where it was kept, the search the party made, and why the file is unavailable.
If the file was lost, the declarant shall explain when and how it was lost, to the extent known.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 16, 2026
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge
a protocol was not agreed upon, but in the ordinary course an ESI protocol is one discovery tool
that parties may use to prevent a discovery dispute of this sort.
Case 3:26-cv-01060-TLT Document 40 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 2