IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—N.D. Cal.: Nonparty Netflix must disclose former business partner’s source code, (Oct 23, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

The burden on Netflix to produce the code was proportionate to the necessity of the information to advance the litigation.

Web server source code received by Netflix from a party accused of copying code to create a competing product would have to be disclosed in response to a subpoena, the federal district court in Oakland has held. The plaintiff’s motion to compel the disclosure of the code from Netflix was granted because the request was proportionate to the needs of the case and party discovery alone would not adequately meet those needs (Lynwood Investments CY, Limited v. Konovalov, No. 3:20-cv-03778-MMC, (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2025)).

Lynwood Investments CY, LLC (Lynwood) was the owner by assignment of a web server software code known as NGINX Plus, which had allegedly been developed by Igor Sysoev, Maxim Konovalov, and Gleb Smirnoff while they were employed by Rambler Internet Holding, LLC (Rambler). Lynwood alleged that the three individuals had used Rambler resources and time to create both an open-source version of NGINX which they released to the public as well as a premium product which they sold through a business they created while still at Rambler. That business’s first customer was Netflix, for which they produced a content delivery network using the intellectual property that Lynwood alleged belonged to Rambler, its predecessor in interest.

Lynwood brought suit for copyright infringement against all three individuals and in discovery sought by subpoena directed to non-party Netflix a copy of the source code purchased from their new company. Netflix objected to the requested information and Lynwood moved to compel.

Source code. Netflix argued that it should not have to produce the requested information because it was readily obtainable from party discovery. Netflix also argued that Lynwood had not shown there were any “gaps” in party discovery that would make its production necessary. The court found that under the circumstances, where it was alleged that the defendants had acted to destroy records and Lynwood had shown that a comparison between the code as it was received by Netflix and the code as it was later produced in discovery by the defendants could produce useful information for the trier of fact, the request for the source code was reasonable and the motion to compel would be granted.

Other requests. Lynwood had also sought other information, such as “All Documents and Communications concerning agreements, contracts and/or statements of work between Netflix and any of the Defendants.” The court found that these requests were overbroad and it had not been established that the materials which would be responsive would have anything to do with the present litigation. The court denied the motion to compel as to all requests except the one for the source code.

The court granted the motion to compel as to the source code and denied it as to the remaining requests, while directing the parties to meet and confer in an attempt to narrow those remaining requests.

The Case is No. 3:20-cv-03778-MMC.

Judge: Chesney, M.

Attorneys: Alexander D. Pencu (Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC) for Lynwood Investments CY Ltd. David Shane Brun (King & Spalding LLP) for Maxim Konovalov.

Companies: Lynwood Investments CY Ltd.

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet CaliforniaNews