Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc.

Opinion

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 |} SAMESURF, INC., Case No.: 22-cv-412-RSH-DDL 12 Plaintity, | FURTHER ORDER REGARDING 13 || INTUIT’S MOTION TO COMPEL 14 || INTUIT, INC., [Dkt. No. 81] 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pursuant to the Court’s December 4, 2024 Order [Dkt. No. 84], Plaintiff has lodged 18 |/a litigation funding agreement for the Court’s in camera review. Having reviewed the 19 ||agreement, the Court determines it contains no information concerning the value of the 20 patent at issue in this case. Accordingly, and for the reasons explained in the Court’s 21 || December 4 Order, the Court finds the agreement is not relevant, and DENIES Defendant’s 22 || motion to compel its production. See Taction Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2022 WL 18781396, 23 *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2022). 24 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: December 12, 2024 _— 26 Thi hohe 7 27 “Hon. DavidD.Leshner SCS 28 United States Magistrate Judge