Indacon, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Facebook, Inc., Defendant CIV. NO. SA-10-CA-966-OLG Signed February 14, 2012 Primomo, John W., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Before the Court is plaintiff, Indacon's motion to compel production of documents and discovery responses from Facebook. (Docket nos. 61, 62 and 65). Defendant, Facebook, has responded. (Docket no. 64). Upon consideration of the motion, response, and applicable law, plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Docket no. 61). APPLICABLE LAW “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense....” FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(1). However, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that: (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 pary seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C). Upon a showing of good cause, the party may obtain a court order to discover any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. The party resisting discovery bears the burden of establishing lack of relevance, specifically by demonstrating the requested discovery either does not come within the broad scope of relevance under Rule 26(b)(1) or is of such marginal relevance the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure. Securities & Exchange Comm'n v. Brady, 238 F.R.D. 429, 435 (N.D.Tex.2006). BACKGROUND Indacon sued Facebook for infringement of two Indacon patents through Facebook's “creation and continued operation of theFacebook.com social networking service online at www.facebook.com.” More specifically, Indacon alleges that Facebook infringed upon its '076 patent by “making, using, selling, or offering for sale the Facebook system incorporating linking, perusal, and search features, and/or services offered in relation to the Facebook system.” Docket no. 13, Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, pg. 2. Indacon further alleges that the accused features and functionality of the Facebook system include “a module that enables the selection of a plurality of profiles to be included among a user's friends or interests, a module that enables defining a display name associated with a profile and defining text or graphics as an alias for the display name, a module that enables generation of a searchable index of data in the profiles, including the display name, and a module that enables searching of data in the profiles.” Id., pg. 3. Indacon made similar allegations with respect to its '043 patent and because these functions are allegedly core features of the Facebook social network system, sought to obtain information regarding Facebook's “complete social networking system, including itsFacebook.com website and related applications and products, as the accused infringing products.” *2 On March 25, 2011, Indacon served its first set of document requests and interrogatories on Facebook, seeking “documents and information pertaining to revenue, technical documents relating to the development and operation of the accused Facebook system, documents and information pertaining to versions of the Facebook system, and marketing data and materials.” Facebook produced its source code, maintaining that the code contains “[a]ll of the answers Indacon seeks”, including “a version control database showing when changes were made to the code, and by whom”; however, Facebook otherwise objected to Indacon's definition of “accused products,” and Indacon's requests based on breadth, burden, relevance, and privilege. Indacon now moves to compel Facebook to: produce documents fully responsive to Indacon's First Request for Production Nos. 23–26, 28, 30–33, 39–48, 50–53, and 57–60; fully supplement its invalidity contentions called for in the Amended Scheduling Order, as well as Indacon's First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 2–5; and fully supplement its responses to Indacon's First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 10–14, and 16. DISCUSSION I. Indacon's First Request for Production Initially, Indacon moves to compel responses to Request for Productions Nos. 23–26, 28, 30–33, 39–48, 50–53, and 57–60, which are set forth below: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23 All documents concerning the conception, design, investigation, evaluation, development, testing and release of the Accused Products, or of any version of the Accused Products. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24 All documents and things identifying or concerning all materially different versions or iterations of the Accused Products since 2004, or concerning any material modifications or updates to the Accused Products since 2004, including, without limitation, the release date for each such version or material modification or update, version control documentation, software change lists, change sets, change logs, or patches identifying any set of changes made to the Accused Products. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25 All documents and things concerning any material changes made to the following functions and features of the Accused Products since 2004: display names; nicknames; alternate names; hyperlinking of profile pictures; photo captioning; photo commenting; inserting hyperlinked display names into posts; searching and search operators; and searching posts by friends. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26 All source code, specifications, schematics, flow charts, and other documentation sufficient to show the operation of the Accused Products. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28 Operational software, including executables, sufficient to duplicate the features and functionality of the Accused Products. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30 All documents and things concerning any actual use of the Accused Products, including, without limitation, videos, testimonials, customer feedback, analytics, and usage data collected by Defendant or any third party. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31 All instructional materials pertaining to the Accused Products, including, but not limited to, manuals, tutorials, help files, FAQs, slides, and other presentations and videos. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32 All documents concerning any invention disclosures or other patents applied for, pending, issued, abandoned, obtained, assigned, used, reviewed, considered or referenced which relate to any aspect of any of the Accused Products, or to which you have referred in any marketing, advertising, promotion, or use of the Accused Products. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33 All documents reflecting any communication by you or on your behalf with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) concerning the Accused Products or the Patents In Suit. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39 All documents and things concerning internal and external efforts in marketing, advertising, promoting, positioning, describing, representing, or listing of the Accused Products or any features of the Accused Products, including, without limitation, samples of any advertisements, brochures, announcements, or press releases. *3 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40 All documents and things concerning selling or promoting: online advertising opportunities, promotions, or other information, materials, services or activities made available, or to be made available, to users, consumers or the public within or in connection with the Accused Products, including, without limitation, all analytics, usage data, and other documents and things provided to current or prospective advertisers. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41 All documents concerning any reports, articles, studies, market research, market surveys, market analyses, market share analyses, or forecasts of customer demand which relate to the Accused Products or other products that compete with or function similarly to any of the Accused Products, or which relate generally to the social networking industry. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42 All documents concerning the market for social networking websites, including, without limitation, all market analyses, market research, sales analyses, sales projections, market share analyses, market share projections, competitive analyses, or third party market analyses. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43 All documents concerning demand for, or interest in, or the lack of demand for, or interest in, any particular features or functions of the Accused Products, including, without limitation, the following features or functions: display names; nicknames; alternate names; hyperlinking of profile pictures; photo captioning; photo commenting; inserting hyperlinked display names into posts; searching and search operators; and searching posts by friends. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44 All documents concerning the popularity or lack of popularity of particular features or functions of the Accused Products, including, without limitation, any usage data or analytics reflecting or analyzing the usage of particular features. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45 Documents reflecting the dollar amounts expended on a quarterly basis on Defendant's promotion (marketing, advertising or other) of the Accused Products since 2004. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46 All documents concerning brochures, banners, boards, posters, or other visual displays or visual aids used or made available by you at any trade conference, seminar, trade show or presentation to customers or potential customers and referencing or depicting the Accused Products or the social networking market or industry. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47 All documents concerning any comparison of the Accused Products to any other products, including those of your competitors in the social networking industry. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48 All documents concerning the social networking industry. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50 All documents concerning Defendant's pricing policies, including without limitation, price lists, discounts, original prices, price mark-ups, price mark-downs, other price adjustments, and pricing or revenue strategies concerning any revenue generated in connection with the Accused Products. *4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51 Documents reflecting all methods by which any revenue is generated in connection with the Accused Products. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52 All documents concerning any proposals, presentations, communications or agreements between you and any third party with respect to advertisements, promotions, or other information, materials, services, or activities made available, or to be made available, to users, consumers or the public in connection with the Accused Products. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53 Documents reflecting all actual, anticipated, estimated, budgeted, or projected sales, income, revenue, profits, expenses, and costs associated with the Accused Products or any related products and services since 2004 (including sales made, and revenues and profits generated with respect to advertisements, promotions, or other information, materials, services, or activities made available, or to be made available, to users, consumers or the public within or in connection with the Accused Products), including, without limitation, names and addresses of each customer from whom income, revenue or compensation was received in connection with the Accused Products, the date each such item of income, revenue or compensation was generated, the gross dollar amount received or due in connection with each such transaction, the type and amount of each item of cost or expense relating to each such transaction, and the gross and net profit resulting from each such transaction. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57 Financial documents concerning the Accused Products and any revenue sources associated with the Accused Products, including, without limitation, annual reports, business plans and projections, consolidated financial statements, income statements, profit and loss statements, operating statements, and balance sheets. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58 All documents concerning the value of the Accused Products. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59 All documents concerning the value of Facebook, Inc. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60 All documents concerning how each of the Accused Products is made available and/or distributed, including, without limitation, documents identifying the locations of any servers used to store, electronically distribute, host, or provide access to the Accused Products via the Internet, documents identifying the locations where any tangible media containing any Accused Products is manufactured and printed, and documents describing or relating to whether and how the distribution of the Accused Products differs for customers or users located outside the United States. With the exception of Request Nos. 42, 48 and 59, all of the above requests include the phrase “accused products” which Indacon has defined as “all versions of Defendant's Facebook social networking service, website, and applications, and all related products, services and technology.”[1] Facebook objects to this definition, arguing that Indacon “fundamentally misconstrues the proper scope of discovery” by seeking “discovery relating to the entire system.” Facebook maintains that Indacon's infringement theory “turns on a few specific features of Indacon's patent claims” while Facebook's website “is a portal to a wide variety of different features and applications.” In an attempt to illustrate its point, Facebook sets out an analogy that a patentee alleging that an automobile infringes patent claims directed to “an automobile comprising a certain XYZ steering apparatus” should direct its focus on the steering apparatus, rather than “ ‘all documents concerning the car and all related products, services, and technology,’ including irrelevant details about the car's doors, seats, windshield wipers, sound system, and climate control, let alone ‘related products, services and technology’ such as credit finance services, formulas for gasoline and motor oil, pricing and specs for window tinting.' ” *5 However, the focus here is considerably broader than an automobile comprising a certain steering apparatus. Indacon has alleged that Facebook infringed claims 1–4 and 8–11 of the '276 patent. The '276 patent, entitled “Database System and Method for Data Acquisition and Perusal,” is a data acquisition and perusal system and method for locating, indexing, and accessing information, as well as a data acquisition and perusal system and method for acquiring, creating, manipulating, indexing, and perusing data. These elements of Indacon's patent arguably cut to the heart of Facebook's operation of theFacebook.com social networking service, overlapping other features and applications in defendant's admittedly vast system. Utilizing defendant's analogy, this case is more akin to a patentee alleging that an automobile infringes patent claims directed to an automobile comprising a certain XYZ steering apparatus featuring controls for speed, audio, voice, stereo, horn, turn signals, high beams, wipers, etc. Under this scenario, documents concerning the car, and related products, services, and technology, including details about the windshield wipers, sound system, etc. might very well be relevant to a patentee's claims that an automobile infringes patent claims directed to “an automobile comprising a certain XYZ steering apparatus.” Similarly, in the present case, plaintiff is not alleging that a single isolated component of Facebook's system infringes upon its patent but rather than core features of Facebook's system infringe upon plaintiff's patents, including the ability to locate, index, and access information, as well the ability to acquire, create, manipulate, and peruse data. Even so, defining “accused products” as “all versions of Defendant's Facebook social networking service, website, and applications, and all related products, services and technology” would appear to be overbroad, particularly since the parties agree that what is relevant here are the “documents and information pertaining to the elements of the Facebook system that Indacon has expressly identified in Indacon's infringement contentions.” Here, Indacon has alleged that Facebook's system infringes upon Indacon's system and method for locating, indexing, and accessing all information, as well as its system and method for acquiring, creating, manipulating, indexing, and perusing all data; therefore, Facebook must produce all information and documents pertaining to its system and method for locating, indexing, and accessing all information, as well as its system and method for acquiring, creating, manipulating, indexing, and perusing all data. Information falling under this umbrella may very well include information regarding Facebook's ads system, credits and gift cards, text messages, etc. as those features may incorporate a system and method for locating, indexing, and accessing information, as well as a system and method for acquiring, creating, manipulating, indexing, and perusing all data. This information is nevertheless relevant and subject to disclosure. Despite recognizing the importance of the source code as “the key evidence for determining infringement or non-infringement,” Facebook seeks to restrict the focus of discovery to solely the source code, and would deny Indacon the benefit of any documentation surrounding the code and its functionality which might otherwise provide clarification. Clearly, the source code alone has raised questions, rather than provided “[a]ll of the answers Indacon seeks,” and would best be reviewed in tandem with the documentation surrounding the code and its functionality. And while some of the source code's supporting documentation may well be cumulative, there has been no evidence presented that it would be unreasonably so or that this same information can, in fact, be obtained more readily from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. As documentation surrounding the code and its functionality is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED in part as to Request for Production Nos. 23–26, 28, 30–31 with respect to Facebook's source code and all supporting documentation surrounding the code and its functionality to the extent these documents pertain to Facebook's system and method for locating, indexing, and accessing all information, as well as its system and method for acquiring, creating, manipulating, indexing, and perusing all data. Provided the source code is produced in a readable format, along with all documentation surrounding the code and its functionality, the court agrees that other information sought by plaintiff regarding Facebook's technology would be cumulative; therefore, plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED as to requests for information pertaining to Facebook's social networking service, website, and applications, and related products, services and technology sought in addition to Facebook's source code and all documentation surrounding the code and its functionality. (Request for Production Nos. 23–26, 28, 30–31).[2] *6 Request Nos. 32 and 33 seek documents concerning any invention disclosures or other patents applied for, pending, issued, abandoned, obtained, assigned, used, reviewed, considered or referenced which relate to any aspect of any of the Accused Products, or to which Facebook has referred in any marketing, advertising, promotion, or use of the Accused Products, as well as documents reflecting any communication by Facebook or on its behalf with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) concerning the Accused Products or the Patents In Suit. Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 32 and 33 to the extent documents responsive to these requests otherwise pertain to Facebook's system and method for locating, indexing, and accessing all information, as well as its system and method for acquiring, creating, manipulating, indexing, and perusing all data. Request for Production Nos. 39–41, 43–47, 52, and 60 seek documents pertaining to the production and marketing of the Accused Products. Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED as to Request for Production Nos. 39–41, 43–47, 52, and 60 to the extent documents responsive to these requests otherwise pertain to Facebook's system and method for locating, indexing, and accessing all information, as well as its system and method for acquiring, creating, manipulating, indexing, and perusing all data and/or the patent claims that are the subject of this suit. Request Nos. 50, 51, 53, 57, and 58 seek documents pertaining to the value of the Accused Products; all sales, income, revenue, profits, expenses, and costs associated with the Accused Products; all methods by which revenue is generated for the Accused Products; defendant's pricing policies; and the dollar amounts expended on a quarterly basis for promotion of the Accused Products. Facebook contends that it has already produced its complete audited financial statements and “remains willing to produce more if Indacon narrows its request.” Indacon argues on the other hand that Facebook has produced solely audited consolidated financial statements. While information pertaining to defendant's finances is clearly relevant to plaintiff's claims, it is unclear how other information sought is relevant. For example, Request No. 53 seeks: Documents reflecting all actual, anticipated, estimated, budgeted, or projected sales, income, revenue, profits, expenses, and costs associated with the Accused Products or any related products and services since 2004 (including sales made, and revenues and profits generated with respect to advertisements, promotions, or other information, materials, services, or activities made available, or to be made available, to users, consumers or the public within or in connection with the Accused Products), including, without limitation, names and addresses of each customer from whom income, revenue or compensation was received in connection with the Accused Products, the date each such item of income, revenue or compensation was generated, the gross dollar amount received or due in connection with each such transaction, the type and amount of each item of cost or expense relating to each such transaction, and the gross and net profit resulting from each such transaction. Anticipated, estimated or projected sales from 2004 forward do not appear to be relevant, nor do the names and addresses of Facebook's customers. Further, the burden or expense of this proposed discovery would appear to outweigh its likely benefit. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED with respect to Request No. 53. Notwithstanding defendant's production of its audited financial statement, plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 50, 51, 57, and 58 to the extent documents responsive to these requests otherwise pertain to Facebook's system and method for locating, indexing, and accessing all information, as well as its system and method for acquiring, creating, manipulating, indexing, and perusing all data and/or the patent claims that are the subject of this suit. II. Facebook's Invalidity Contentions and Indacon's First Set of Interrogatories *7 Indacon further moves to compel Facebook to supplement its invalidity contentions, as well as Interrogatories Nos. 2–5, which state: INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify each item of prior art that allegedly anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious as follows: each prior art patent shall be identified by its number, country of origin, and date of issue; each prior art publication must be identified by its title, date of publication, and where feasible, author and publisher; prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) shall be identified by specifying the item offered for sale or publicly used or known, the date the offer or use took place or the information became known, and the identity of the person or entity which made the use or which made and received the offer, or the person or entity which made the information known or to whom it was made known; prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) shall be identified by providing the name of the person(s) from whom and the circumstances under which the invention or any part of it was derived; prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) shall be identified by providing the identities of the person(s) or entities involved in and the circumstances surrounding the making of the invention before the inventors of the Patents In Suit. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: State whether each item of prior art identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2 anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious, and, if you assert that a combination of prior art makes a claim obvious, identify each such combination and the motivation to combine such items. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify in chart form where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each element of each asserted claim is found, including for each element that you contend is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in each item of prior art that performs the claimed function. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify any grounds of invalidity based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(2) or enablement or written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(1) of any of the asserted claims. Although Facebook objected to Interrogatories Nos. 2–5 on various grounds, in response to Indacon's motion to compel supplementation of Facebook's invalidity contentions, Facebook states only that “it has agreed to supplement its invalidity contentions by the end of October 2011, and will do so.” Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff's motion has merit and should be GRANTED. To the extent it has not already done so, Facebook is ordered to supplement its invalidity contentions, as well as Interrogatories Nos. 2–5. III. Indacon's First Set of Interrogatories Finally, Indacon seeks to compel responses to its First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 10–14, and 16 which state the following: INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify the date when the following functions and features of the Accused Product were first implemented in a form functioning substantially similar to their current form: display names; nicknames; alternate names; hyperlinking of profile pictures; photo captioning; photo commenting; inserting hyperlinked display names into posts; searching and search operators; and searching posts by friends. *8 INTERROGATORY NO. 11: If any of the functions and features identified in Interrogatory No. 10 were first implemented in their current form after December 21, 2004, identify the material differences in functionality between the current form of such functions or features and any previous implementations. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Describe in detail (1) the manner or methods by which sales are made and/or revenue and profits are generated in connection with the Accused Products, including, without limitation, how advertising, promotions, or other information, materials, services, or activities are sold or can be or are made available to users, consumers, and/or the public within or in connection with the Accused Products. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: On (a) an annual basis and (b) a monthly or quarterly basis, state the amount of sales made, and revenue and profit generated or earned in relation to the Accused Products since December 21, 2004, including, without limitation, revenue and profits generated with respect to advertisements, promotions, or other information, materials, services, or activities sold or made available, or to be made available, to users, consumers or the public within or in connection with the Accused Products, and identify the source for all such revenue. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify the customers, individuals, or entities to whom sales have been made or from whom revenues and/or profits have been generated or earned in connection with the Accused Products, including, without limitation, customers, individuals or entities making available to users, consumers and/or the public various advertising, promotions, or other information, materials, services, or activities within or in connection with the Accused Products. Your answer should include the following information for each customer: (1) the customer's name and address; (2) the dates on which sales were made to or revenue generated in relation to each such customer; and (3) the amount of revenue generated since December 21, 2004 in relation to each such customer. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: For each of the Accused Products, describe all versions, releases, or other iterations, including, separately, for each such version, release, or iteration, the release, update or version number, if any; the release date; the date of first use; the specific manner in which the version, release, or iteration varies from the immediately prior version, release, or iteration; and the identity of the person(s) most knowledgeable with respect to the subject matter of this interrogatory. Facebook objected, for the most part, that these interrogatories were overbroad and unduly burdensome, and further, sought information that was irrelevant and/or protected by various privileges or immunities. Facebook further objected that Interrogatories Nos. 13, 14 and 16 were compound and contained multiple subparts. Initially, the Court notes that Interrogatories Nos. 10, 11 and 16 seek information regarding Facebook's social networking service, website, and applications, and all related products, services and technology. Having previously determined that the source code and documentation surrounding the code and its functionality should be produced, the Court finds plaintiff's motion to compel information responsive to these requests is GRANTED to the extent they seek information pertaining to the source code and all documentation surrounding the code and its functionality in accordance with this order and DENIED insofar as they seek information in addition to the complete source code and supporting documentation. *9 Interrogatories 12, 13 and 14 seek information pertaining to sales, revenues and profits, which is arguably relevant to plaintiff's damages. However, Interrogatory 14 seeks information pertaining to the identity of every “customer[ ], individual[ ], or entit[y] to whom sales have been made or from whom revenues and/or profits have been generated or earned in connection with the Accused Products.” In addition to being overbroad, this interrogatory does not appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED as to Interrogatory No. 14. Interrogatories Nos. 12 and 13 seek information pertaining to the manner and methods in which sales are made and the profits generated, as well as the amount of sales made, and revenue and profit generated or earned in relation to the Accused Products since December 21, 2004. Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED as to Interrogatories Nos. 12 and 13 to the extent information otherwise responsive to these interrogatories pertains to Facebook's system and method for locating, indexing, and accessing all information, as well as its system and method for acquiring, creating, manipulating, indexing, and perusing all data and/or the patent claims that are the subject of this suit. Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS in part plaintiff's motion to compel and ORDERS as follows: 1. Facebook shall produce to Indacon (in accordance with the stipulated protective order) the entire source code along with any documentation surrounding the code and its functionality to the extent documents responsive to Request Nos. 23–26, 28, and 30–31 otherwise pertain to Facebook's system and method for locating, indexing, and accessing all information, as well as its system and method for acquiring, creating, manipulating, indexing, and perusing all data. Facebook shall produce said documents within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order; 2. Additionally, Facebook shall produce all documents and/or information responsive to Request Nos. 32–33, 39–41, 43–47, 50–52, 57–59, and 60 to the extent documents responsive to these requests otherwise pertain to Facebook's system and method for locating, indexing, and accessing all information, as well as its system and method for acquiring, creating, manipulating, indexing, and perusing all data and/or the patent claims that are the subject of this suit. Facebook shall produce said documents within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. 3. Facebook shall further supplement its invalidity contentions, as well as Interrogatories Nos. 2–5 to the extent it has not already done so within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. 4. Finally, Facebook shall respond to Interrogatories Nos. 10–13, and 16 to the extent information responsive to these interrogatories otherwise pertain to Facebook's system and method for locating, indexing, and accessing all information, as well as its system and method for acquiring, creating, manipulating, indexing, and perusing all data and/or the patent claims that are the subject of this suit. Facebook shall respond within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this order. (Docket no. 61). It is so ORDERED. SIGNED February 14, 2012. Footnotes [1] Request Nos. 42 and 48 seek documents concerning the market for social networking websites, including, without limitation, all market analyses, market research, sales analyses, sales projections, market share analyses, market share projections, competitive analyses, or third party market analyses, as well as documents concerning “the social networking industry.” These requests are overbroad in scope, cumulative, and/or duplicative of Request Nos. 39–41, 43–47, 52 and 60. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is DENIED as to Request Nos. 42 and 48. Defendant's objections to Request No. 59, which seeks documents reflecting the value of Facebook, Inc., are overruled; accordingly, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED as to this request. [2] The parties also dispute whether the source code must be produced in printable format or whether the Agreed Protective Order precludes Facebook from being required to provide paper copies of more sensitive portions of the source code. This issue appears to be the basis of a pending motion and therefore, will not be addressed at this time. (Docket no. 89).