Pulse Electronics, Inc. v. U.D. Electronic Corp. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC., Case No.: 18-cv-00373-BEN (DEB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REGARDING JOINT 14 U.D. ELECTRONIC CORP., MOTION FOR DETERMINATION 15 Defendant. OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE; AND 16 (2) GRANTING JOINT MOTION 17 TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 18 19 [DKT. NOS. 133, 134] 20 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 21 Dispute. Dkt. No. 133. In the Joint Motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses in 22 connection with: (1) Plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice; and 23 (2) Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents. For the reasons discussed below, the 24 Court GRANTS, in part, Plaintiff’s request to compel further testimony in response to its 25 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice and DENIES Plaintiff’s request to compel further 26 responses to its Requests for Production of Documents. 27 28 1 1. Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice 2 Plaintiff argues that Defendant breached its duty to provide a knowledgeable witness 3 in response to topics 1, 3, 5, 6, and 22 listed in Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. 4 Defendant responds that its designated witness, Mr. Chris Chen, was prepared on all topics 5 and gave responsive, non-evasive answers to the questions posed. 6 The Court has reviewed the relevant portions of the November 4, 2020 deposition 7 transcript. The Court finds that Mr. Chen provided sufficiently responsive answers to the 8 questions posed regarding topics 1, 5, 6, and 22. 9 The Court, however, finds that Mr. Chen was not adequately prepared to provide 10 responsive information on topic 3, which sought testimony regarding “[t]he facts and 11 circumstances, including the entities involved, of the design, manufacture, and/or 12 distribution into and within the U.S. . . . and/or imports into the U.S. of the ACCUSED 13 PRODUCTS.” The Court’s conclusion is based on the colloquy on page 30, line 8 through 14 page 32, line 1 of the transcript. As UDE’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee, it was UDE’s obligation 15 to have Mr. Chen (or another designee) prepared to provide the information sought in that 16 colloquy, which sought information regarding topic 3 of Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) 17 deposition notice. See Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions, 353 F. 3d 792, 798 18 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003) (A corporate entity is “obligated to produce the most qualified person 19 [or persons] to testify” when served with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition subpoena.) (internal 20 quotation omitted); Louisiana Pac. Corp. v. Money Market Inst. Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 21 481, 486 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“The Corporation has a duty to educate its witnesses so they 22 are prepared to fully answer the questions posed at the deposition.”). 23 The Court, therefore, orders UDE to designate a witness with knowledge regarding 24 topic 3, and to produce that witness for a deposition. The Court further orders Plaintiff to 25 complete that deposition on or before January 5, 2021, and orders Defendant to produce 26 its designated witness for a deposition on or before that date. 27 / / 28 / / 1 2. Request for Production of Documents 2 Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has not produced all documents responsive to 3 Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) 8, 11, 17, 26, and 27. Defendant 4 responds that it has produced all documents responsive to these requests. 5 Plaintiff has attached exhibits to the Joint Motion that it claims establish Defendant 6 has not produced all responsive documents. Defendant disputes that these exhibits establish 7 its failure to produce responsive documents, and, for each RFP at issue, represents that it 8 has produced all responsive documents. 9 The Court has reviewed the exhibits and is unable to conclude from them that 10 Defendant has withheld any responsive documents. In addition, defense counsel has 11 represented that Defendant has fully responded to each of Plaintiff’s RFPs. “[A]bsent 12 contrary evidence, ‘the Court presumes the truthfulness of representations made to the 13 Court by attorneys.’” Munoz v. InGenesis STGi Partners, LLC, No. 14-cv-1547-MMA 14 (BLM), 2015 WL 13559890, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere 15 & Co., 261 F.R.D. 127, 137 (E.D. Mich. 2009)). The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s 16 request to compel. 17 3. Motion to Seal 18 The parties request sealing of Exhibits C, D, G, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, and R to the 19 Joint Motion. Dkt. No. 134. The parties assert that those exhibits either were previously 20 sealed by the Court, are subject to the Protective Order in this case, or contain confidential 21 business information. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal and 22 orders the Exhibits listed above be filed under seal. See Kamakana v. City & County of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006)) (“[A] particularized showing, under 24 the ‘good cause’ standard of Rule 26(c) will suffice to warrant preserving the secrecy of 25 sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive motions.”) (internal citations, 26 quotations, and edits omitted). 27 / / 28 / / 1 4. Conclusion 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 3 1. The discovery cut-off will be continued from December 22, 2020 to 4 || January 5, 2021, for the sole purpose of completing Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. 5 || All other deadlines and requirements remain as previously set. See Dkt. Nos. 119, 123. 6 2. Defendant must produce a knowledgeable witness(es) capable of providing 7 meaningful testimony on topic 3 for a further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. The deposition 8 || must take place on or before January 5, 2021. 9 3. The documents lodged at Dkt. No. 135, SHALL BE FILED UNDER SEAL. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: December 28, 2020 — 12 wudGedinfdlnn. 13 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28