Largan Precision Co, LTD v. Motorola Mobility, LLC. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LARGAN PRECISION CO, LTD, Case No. 21-cv-09138-JSW (DMR) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY 9 v. MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC., Re: Dkt. No. 159 11 Defendant. 12 13 The parties filed a joint discovery letter in which Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC 14 (“Motorola”) moves to compel Plaintiff Largan Precision Co., Ltd. (“Largan”) to produce its 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) witnesses for deposition in or near San Francisco. The 16 parties also dispute whether Motorola should be permitted to depose Largan’s CEO Adam Lin. 17 Largan contends that Lin is subject to protection under the apex doctrine. [Docket No. 159.] 18 With respect to the depositions of the Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses, it appears that the parties 19 have not completed meeting and conferring on the number and scope of Motorola’s 30(b)(6) topics, and Largan contends that because of the outstanding disputes, it has not yet determined 20 who its 30(b)(6) designee(s) will be. Accordingly, the parties’ dispute about the location of the 21 depositions of the 30(b)(6) witnesses is premature. To overcome the presumption that a plaintiff’s 22 deposition shall take place in the district in which plaintiff filed suit, the “plaintiff has the burden 23 of proving that undue hardship or exceptional or compelling circumstances justify [their] refusal to 24 travel to [their] chosen forum.” Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp, No. C-13-01271-RS (DMR), 25 2014 WL 4058484, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014). In the absence of information about the 26 specific 30(b)(6) deponents, the court cannot evaluate the existence of “undue hardship or 27 1 depositions. Accordingly, this portion of the joint letter is denied without prejudice. The parties 2 shall promptly complete their meet and confer about the scope of the 30(b)(6) deposition and 3 discuss the location(s) of the deposition(s) after Largan designates an individual(s) to testify on its 4 behalf. If disputes remain after meeting and conferring, the parties shall submit a joint letter in 5 accordance with the court’s Standing Order. The parties may not incorporate by reference any 6 prior submission. 7 With respect to Lin’s deposition, the parties did not adequately brief their dispute. While 8 the party seeking to avoid an apex deposition bears the burden of showing good cause for why the deposition should not be allowed, In re Transpacific Passenger Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., No. 9 07-cv-05634-CRB (DMR), 2014 WL 939287, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2014), the court has 10 discretion to limit discovery “where the discovery sought can be obtained from some other source 11 that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 12 Ltd, 282 F.R.D. 259, 263 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Courts 13 consider two factors when determining whether to permit an apex deposition: first, courts have 14 granted depositions of high-ranking executives when they possess first-hand knowledge of 15 “important, relevant, and material facts.” First United Methodist Church of San Jose v. Atl. Mut. 16 Ins. Co., No. 95-cv-2243-DLJ, 1995 WL 566026, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 1995) (citation 17 omitted). Second, courts consider whether the party seeking the apex deposition has obtained the 18 information sought through other discovery or less intrusive means. See In re Transpacific 19 Passenger, 2014 WL 939287, at *5. “If it appears unlikely that [the apex witness] has percipient 20 knowledge of material facts, or if there are other witnesses who could testify to those facts from a 21 similar vantage point, there is more reason to question whether the deposition is being sought for 22 abusive rather than appropriate fact-finding purposes.” Id. at *3. Here, the parties did not 23 adequately address whether Lin has first-hand knowledge of “important, relevant, and material 24 facts” or whether other discovery or less intrusive means exist to obtain the information Motorola 25 seeks from Lin. This portion of the joint letter is denied without prejudice. The parties shall 26 immediately meet and confer regarding Lin’s deposition considering the legal standard applicable 27 to apex depositions. If disputes remain after meeting and conferring, the parties shall file a 1 standalone joint letter regarding Lin’s deposition in accordance with the court’s Standing Order. 2 || The parties may not incorporate by reference any prior submission. > DIST) KF LSS 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Ly ON 5 || Dated: November 14, 2024 KK, <5 NDERED □□ 2/[\ir is 6 = € Mon yD BR UY MY ’ AN eG Bo □ J O Donne © 8 PA Wace xe a 9 OX OY 10 DISTRICS 11 12 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28