Alexsam, Inc. v. Green Dot Corporation et al

Filing 295

(REDACTED) MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - GREEN DOT CORP.'S MOTION TO STRIKE BAKER EXPERT REPORT AND PRECLUDE HIS TESTIMONY, AND FOR SANCTIONS [255 and 273] by Judge Christina A. Snyder. The Court finds this motion appropriate for decisions without or al argument. Accordingly, the hearing currently scheduled for June 26, 2017, is hereby vacated. Green Dots request for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the Court's inherent authority is DENIED. Green Dot's request for leave to file a discovery-related motion is GRANTED. The discovery deadline for filing a motion to compel the testimony of Baker is hereby extended. Green Dot is directed to file such a motion before the Magistrate Judge no later than July 5, 2017. The Court leaves to the Magistrate Judge scheduling issues relating to said motion; however, the Court intends to maintain the trial date of September 5, 2017. See document for details. (smo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O

[REDACTED] CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5742-CAS (PLAx)

Title

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORP. ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 19, 2017

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

CONNIE LEE

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A

N/A

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) GREEN DOT CORP.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
BAKER EXPERT REPORT AND PRECLUDE HIS TESTIMONY,
AND FOR SANCTIONS (Filed May 22, 2017, Dkt. 255 and 273)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decisions without oral argument.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7–15. Accordingly, the hearing currently scheduled for June
26, 2017, is hereby vacated, and the matter is taken under submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION

On June 12, 2015, Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) filed a complaint in the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles against Green Dot Corporation, Next
Estate Communications, Inc. (“Next Estate”), and Does one through ten, inclusive
(collectively “Green Dot”1). Dkt.1, Ex. A. On April 17, 2017, Alexsam filed the
operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Dkt. 220. The gravamen of plaintiff’s
complaint is that defendants have breached a prior Settlement Agreement in a patent
dispute between the parties. On July 29, 2015, defendants filed a notice of removal to
this Court. Dkt. 1.
On January 3, 2017, the Court set the expert discovery cutoff date as May 5, 2017.
Dkt. 173. On May 5, 2017, the Court extended the expert discovery cutoff to May 12,
Plaintiff alleges that on or about November 1, 2005, Next Estate changed its name
to Green Dot Corporation and that Next Estate is the predecessor of Green Dot. Plaintiff
refers to both defendants, collectively, as Green Dot. For purposes of this order, the
Court also refers to defendants as Green Dot.
1

CV-5742 (06/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O

[REDACTED] CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5742-CAS (PLAx)

Date

Title

June 19, 2017

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORP. ET AL.

2017. Dkt. 238. The parties have each filed motions for summary judgment, which are
currently scheduled for a hearing on June 26, 2017.
On May 22, 2017, Green Dot filed the instant motion to strike an expert report by
Robert Baker, to preclude his testimony in this case, and for sanctions. Dkt. 255 (public);
Dkt. 273 (under seal). On May 29, 2017, Alexsam filed an opposition. Dkt. 263. On
June 5, 2017, Green Dot filed a reply. Dkt. 280.
Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes
as follows.
II.

BACKGROUND
A.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Alexsam is the owner of two patents: United States Patent No. 6,000,608 entitled
“Multifunction Card System” (“the ‘608 Patent”) and United States Patent No. 6,189,787
entitled “Multifunctional Card System” (“the ‘787 Patent”) (collectively, “Subject
Patents”). SAC ¶ 8. As described by Alexsam, the patented technology enables
operators of a stored value card system to provide prepaid debit cards or gift cards for
sale and to enable card activation transactions to be performed at select retail locations.
Id. ¶ 23.
On September 26, 2003, Alexsam brought an action against Next Estate in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Next Estate
had infringed the ‘608 and ‘787 patents (“the Texas Litigation”). Dkt. 59, Ex. A (docket
in the Texas Litigation), Ex. B (Second Amended Complaint filed by Alexsam in the
Texas Litigation). On or about June 3, 2005, the parties resolved the Texas Litigation by
entering into a “Settlement and License Agreement” (“the SLA”). SAC Ex. A.
In accordance with the SLA, the parties filed a stipulated dismissal with prejudice
in the Texas Litigation. SAC Ex. D. On June 10, 2005, the court accepted the parties’
stipulation and dismissed the Texas Litigation. SAC Ex. E. [REDACTED]
Defendants allegedly breached the SLA by [REDACTED].

CV-5742 (06/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 2 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O

[REDACTED] CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5742-CAS (PLAx)

Title

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORP. ET AL.
B.

Date

June 19, 2017

Robert Baker

Robert Baker is a financial services consultant. On his curriculum vitae
Baker states that he is a senior executive in the payment systems industry with over
40 years of experience in the financial services industry. Dkt. 254-3 at 44. Baker
has testified as an expert at trial and at deposition numerous times on behalf of
Alexsam. Dkt. 254-3, Ex. 4 (“Baker Report”) at 4, ¶ 122. Baker has rendered
multiple expert reports in the past relating to the Subject Patents specifically.
Dkt. 254-2, Ex. 1 (“Depo. Transcript”) at 7:24-8:2. Baker has also offered
declarations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in support of the patentability
of the Subject Patents. See Dkt. 254-2 at 77 & 84. [REDACTED]. Depo.
Transcript at 27:14-16.
In the introduction to his expert report, Baker states:
I have been retained by [Alexsam] for the purpose of providing my expert
opinion on certain technical aspects of this case, including but not limited to
banking networks and point of sale (POS) devices and systems.
Baker Report at 1. Baker’s Report further states:
I understand that the dispute in this matter relates to the June 5, 2005 [SLA]
relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,000,608 and 6,189,787 owned by Alexsam . . .
. I also presently expect to testify regarding the related subject matters
summarized in this report.
Id. at 4, ¶ 13.
In Exhibit B to the Baker Report, Baker listed the materials he relied upon in
forming his opinions, including, as relevant here, the Subject Patents and the Claim
Construction Order issued in the Texas Litigation (“Judge Ward’s Order”).
Dkt. 254-3 at 48. Based upon his review of the materials provided and his
experience in the payment systems industry, Baker’s Report provides, inter alia, a
2

All citations to the Baker’s Expert Report will use the internal pagination and
paragraph numbers contained in the report.
CV-5742 (06/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 3 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O

[REDACTED] CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5742-CAS (PLAx)

Date

Title

June 19, 2017

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORP. ET AL.

detailed description of the “Inventions Disclosed in the Alexsam’s ‘608 and ‘787
Patents.” Id. at 12.
On May 12, 2017, Baker appeared for a deposition in this case. Baker’s
deposition was taken by James Bennett Clark, counsel for Green Dot. Attorneys
Jacqueline Burt and Jonathan Miller were present on behalf of Alexsam. Baker’s
deposition commenced at 10:38 a.m. on May 12, 2017. Depo. Transcript at 4:5-6.
Clark commenced by asking Baker about what he relied upon to prepare the Baker
Report, Baker’s experience in the prepaid card industry, and some of the card
products Baker had previously worked with. Id. at 5-25. Clark then asked Baker
about his preparation for the deposition and Baker stated that he reviewed the
Subject Patents as well as the Claim Construction Order in the Texas Litigation the
day prior to the deposition and with counsel for Alexsam. Baker explained that he
reviewed the Claim Construction Order “to make sure I understood [Judge Ward’s]
definition of banking network and there are several terms around or related to
banking network that I wanted to make sure I had straight.” Id. at 29:21-24.
After a brief break from 11:31 a.m. to 11:46 a.m., Clark began to ask Baker about
his report in this case. Clark asked Baker to explain certain phrases and language used in
the section of the Baker Report describing the inventions disclosed by the Subject
Patents. Burt objected to the form of certain questions and that the questions were
“Outside the scope.” See e.g. Id. 51:21-25 (discussing the phrase [REDACTED] in
paragraph 40 of the Baker Report). At one point, Clark asked Baker about paragraph 42
of the Baker Report, which purports to describe the role of a “processing hub,” as
disclosed by the Subject Patents. After Clark restated the contents of paragraph 42 of the
Baker Report, the following exchange took place:
[Clark]:

Are you saying that any of the language that I've referenced in
paragraph 42 has any application to the issues in this case?

[Burt]:

Object to the form. Outside the scope.

[Baker]:
[Clark]:

I guess I don't understand.
Well, you're aware that the parties are applying the claim
construction that Judge Ward made in the earlier case; correct?

CV-5742 (06/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 4 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O

[REDACTED] CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5742-CAS (PLAx)

Date

Title

June 19, 2017

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORP. ET AL.
[Burt]:

Object to form.

[Baker]:
[Clark]:

Correct.
And you are aware that he -- presumably you're aware that he
defined the term processing hub?
I think so.

[Baker]:

...
[Clark then directed Baker to the Texas Litigation claim construction order
definition of a “processing hub”]
...
[Clark]:
[Baker]:
[Clark]:
[Baker]:
[Clark]:

Are you aware of that claim construction?
Yes.
And are you aware that that governs the definition of
processing hub in this case?
Yes.
So I'm asking you whether you believe that any of the language
in paragraph 42 of your report that I just referred to has any
relevance to the issue of what a processing hub is in this case?

[Burt]:

Object to the form. Outside the scope.

[Baker]:
[Clark]:

I believe the processing hub in the patent is consistent with the
court's definition of processing hub.
So you're saying all of the language in paragraph 42 that we
referenced is essentially the same as the court's construction
processing hub?

[Burt]:

Object to the form. Outside the scope.

[Baker]:
[Clark]:

Yes.
Do you have a view as to, in view of Judge Ward's construction
of processing hub, whether any of the information in Figure 2

CV-5742 (06/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 5 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O

[REDACTED] CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5742-CAS (PLAx)

Date

Title

June 19, 2017

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORP. ET AL.
that appears on page 16 of your report is of relevance to this
litigation?
[Burt]:

Same objection.

[Baker]:
[Clark]:

Yes, I believe it is relevant.
Does any of the language in paragraph 42 or any of the
information at Figure 2 constitute other than front end POS
device management in message processor, processing?

[Burt]:

Object to the form. Outside the scope. Mr. Baker, I'm going to
instruct you not to answer.
What's your basis for that?
Outside the scope.
He's talking about the processing code in this paragraph. I need
-- you can't conceivably say it's outside the scope.
You're going beyond what the subpoena called for and our
objection is to the subpoena.
Just so I'm clear, you're instructing him not to answer his
question?
Yes.
And would you -- I think that Mr. -- your basis is just based
outside the scope. I want to know everything -Of his engagement.
-- for this objection because it will be taken up. It's simply that
it's outside the scope of his engagement. Any other objection -Yes, that's the objection to the subpoena.
Okay. I just want to make sure you've got all the -We're going to keep – this objection will be repeated many
times.
Let me finish. I'm just wanting to make sure you've listed all the
bases for your objections -- let me finish, please -- in support of
the instruction.
I didn't say anything. I wasn't interrupting. Yes, you have gone
far – actually throughout this deposition you have gone far
outside the scope of what he is being offered for and I've

[Clark]:
[Burt]:
[Clark]:
[Burt]:
[Clark]:
[Burt]:
[Clark]:
[Burt]:
[Clark]:
[Burt]:
[Clark]:
[Burt]:
[Clark]:

[Burt]:

CV-5742 (06/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 6 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O

[REDACTED] CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5742-CAS (PLAx)

Title

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORP. ET AL.

[Clark]:
[Burt]:

[Clark]:
[Baker]:

Date

June 19, 2017

allowed it, I've objected to scope. I'm not going to continue to
allow it. So I will be instructing him not to answer if you go
outside the basis of his opinions in this case for what he has
been engaged.
So there's no other objection beyond that?
No. Outside the scope and every other outside the scope
objection I've made is for same basis.
So you presumably will honor counsel's direction not to answer
that question?
Yes.

Id. at 57:23-62:14. The deposition continued for several more minutes discussing how
Baker’s description of the Subject Patents fit, or did not fit, within the contours of Judge
Ward’s Order. Burt reiterated multiple objections to Clark’s questions, but did not direct
Baker not to answer. Clark asked about how paragraph 44 related to the contents of the
Subject Patents themselves. Id. at 66:17-19. Baker stated that he did not recall the
answer to the question without having the Subject Patents in front of him, at which time
Burt suggested that the group take a break for lunch. Id. 67:5-8. The parties agreed to
take a break for lunch and went off the record at 12:42 p.m. Id. 67:18-20.
At 1:37 p.m. the record reopened and the following exchange took place:
[Burt]:

Mr. Clark, as I just said to you prior to the break –

(Off the record.)
Mr. Clark, as I just informed you and we're making a formal
record of it now, we are shutting down the deposition of Mr.
Bob Baker based on the fact that you're confusing the witness in
the proceedings and are going far beyond the scope of his report
and his opinions. We're considering whether to seek a
protective order on Mr. Baker's behalf and will consider all
other resources.

CV-5742 (06/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 7 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O

[REDACTED] CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5742-CAS (PLAx)

Title

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORP. ET AL.
[Clark]:

[Burt]:
[Clark]:

Date

June 19, 2017

Let me just ask a question. That means that we are concluded
today because the witness will not be reproduced for
examination; correct?
Right.
My response, as you can imagine, is that this has led to a great
waste of expense and effort. The idea that this witness who has
testified professionally for Mr. Dorf on numerous occasions
would be confused about questions about his own report is
ludicrous on its face and not a single question has been beyond
the scope of his report in my judgment and I certainly have a
great deal more to offer. I probably am not going to go through
the trouble, the offer of proof at this point unless you want me
to. It will probably take about 45 minutes but I'm certainly
intending to ask him about all aspects of the issues that he has
raised in his report and probably had about four or five hours
more examination to go. We, of course, reserve all rights
including seeking an appropriate relief from the court.

Id. at 67:24-69:4. The Baker deposition ended.
Baker has submitted a declaration in support of Alexsam’s opposition to the instant
motion. In his declaration, Baker explains that his involvement in this case has been
limited to his opinions regarding banking network and point of sale devices and systems.
Dkt. 263-1, Baker Decl. ¶ 2. Baker claims that during his deposition, Clark
“continuously asked me questions on topics on which I did not opine in this case. I tried
to respond but some of my answers contained speculation as I did not review any
technical documents and only considered the materials listed in Exhibit B to my report . .
. I was also confused at times during my deposition and also informed [Clark] that I was
confused. This confusion was based on technical questions or details beyond the scope
of my understanding of the issues and my engagement in this case.” Id. ¶¶ 6-7.
III.

DISCUSSION
Rule 30(d) provides:

CV-5742 (06/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 8 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O

[REDACTED] CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5742-CAS (PLAx)

Date

Title

June 19, 2017

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORP. ET AL.
(1) Duration. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a
deposition is limited to one day of 7 hours . . . .
(2) Sanction. The court may impose an appropriate sanction--including
the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred by any party--on a
person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the
deponent.
(3) Motion to Terminate or Limit.
(A) Grounds. At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a
party may move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being
conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys,
embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party. The motion may be filed in
the court where the action is pending or the deposition is being taken. If the
objecting deponent or party so demands, the deposition must be suspended
for the time necessary to obtain an order.

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 30(d). Rule 30(d) is “the only authority allowing the interruption of a
deposition.” Biovail Labs., Inc. v. Anchen Pharm., Inc., 233 F.R.D. 648, 653 (C.D. Cal.
2006) (quoting Perrignon v. Bergen Brunswig Corp., 77 F.R.D. 455, 460-61 n. 4
(N.D.Cal.1978).
It is not the prerogative of counsel, but of the court, to rule on objections.
Indeed, if counsel were to rule on the propriety of questions, oral
examinations would be quickly reduced to an exasperating cycle of
answerless inquiries and court orders. Alternatively, if the plaintiffs'
[defense] attorney believed that the examination was being conducted in bad
faith . . . or that the deponents were being needlessly annoyed, embarrassed,
or oppressed, he should have halted the examination and applied
immediately to the ex parte judge for a ruling on the questions, or for a
ruling on the questions or for a protective order, pursuant to Rule 30(d).
Hearst/ABC-Viacom Entm't Servs. v. Goodway Mktg., Inc., 145 F.R.D. 59, 62 (E.D. Pa.
1992) (quoting Shapiro v. Freeman, 38 F.R.D. 308, 311–12 (S.D.N.Y.1965)).

CV-5742 (06/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 9 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O

[REDACTED] CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5742-CAS (PLAx)

Date

Title

June 19, 2017

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORP. ET AL.

Although Alexsam indicated at the time it terminated the deposition of Baker that
it would seek a protective order from the Court, Alexsam has not filed such a motion.3
Based upon the Court’s examination of the transcript of the deposition and examination
of Baker’s Report, it appears that Alexsam has impermissibly denied Green Dot an
opportunity to depose one of its experts on topics within the scope of his expert report
and the opinions therein.
Alexsam argues that “Defendants’ counsel went well beyond what Mr. Baker was
prepared to testify about” and that Baker became confused. Opp’n at 2 (citing Baker
Decl. ¶¶ 2-7). As an initial matter, it is far from clear why Green Dot’s questions about
Baker’s Report and its relationship to Judge Ward’s Claim Construction Order were
beyond the scope of permissible questioning. Baker acknowledged having reviewed the
Claim Construction Order before writing his report and Baker’s Report purported to
describe the inventions disclosed by the Subject Patents. More importantly, however,
Baker was free to testify that he did not know an answer, that he was not prepared to
testify on a particular subject, that he did not understand the questions, or that he had not
formed any opinion regarding the subject of Green Dot’s questions. Similarly, Alexsam
was free to object and seek resolution of its objections after the deposition was complete.
Alexsam’s disapproval of the scope of the questioning did not provide a basis for
3

In its opposition, Alexsam avers that it:

is willing to discuss the limits of Mr. Baker’s participation in this case, and
failing a resolution, seeks an opportunity to seek the assistance of the Court
in the form of a Motion for Protection pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
26(c)(1). Alexsam has not had an opportunity to establish ‘good cause’ nor
have Defendants made a case for why Alexsam should not have that
opportunity.
Opp’n at 3 (emphasis added). However, if Alexsam could not yet “establish ‘good
cause’,” then it is unclear on what basis Alexsam purports to have terminated Baker’s
deposition. If Alexsam felt that the deposition was being conducted improperly, it was
required to promptly seek Court intervention via an ex parte application pursuant to
Rule 30. Baker’s deposition should have been temporarily suspended, pending resolution
of Alexsam’s motion, not unilaterally ended by Alexsam’s counsel.
CV-5742 (06/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 10 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O

[REDACTED] CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5742-CAS (PLAx)

Date

Title

June 19, 2017

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORP. ET AL.

terminating the deposition, nor does Alexsam explain in its opposition why Green Dot’s
questions were improper other than to state that Baker was not prepared for them.
Although the Court concludes that Alexsam impermissibly terminated the Baker
deposition, that does not end the Court’s inquiry. Green Dot requests that the Court
(1) award defendants’ attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in preparing for the Baker
deposition, taking the deposition, and filing the instant motion; (2) strike the Baker
Report and preclude Baker from testifying further in this matter; and/or (3) make a
finding that certain portions of Baker’s past testimony are authentic and admissible4.
Green Dot argues that the Court should order the foregoing remedies as an exercise of its
inherent powers or 28 U.S.C. § 1927. In the alternative, Green Dot seeks leave to file a
discovery motion seeking appropriate sanctions.
The imposition of sanctions as an exercise of the Court’s inherent power to
maintain control over proceedings requires an explicit finding that counsel’s conduct
“constituted or was tantamount to bad faith.” Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse,
115 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 1997). “The bad faith requirement sets a high threshold” and
even frivolous, outrageous, and inexcusable conduct by an attorney may not rise to the
level of bad faith obstruction. Id. Although Alexsam’s disruption of Baker’s deposition
was inconsistent with the Rules of Procedure and thus impermissible, it is not clear that
Alexsam’s counsel acted in bad faith by unilaterally terminating the deposition.
Accordingly, the Court declines to sanction Alexsam as an exercise of its inherent
authority to manage these proceedings.
28 U.S.C. § 1927 authorizes the Court to impose sanctions upon an individual
attorney where that attorney “multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and
vexatiously.” “The key term in the statute is ‘vexatiously’; carelessly, negligently, or
unreasonably multiplying the proceedings is not enough.” In re Girardi, 611 F.3d 1027,
1061 (9th Cir. 2010). Section 1927 requires a finding of recklessness or bad faith. In re
Keegan Mgmt. Co., Sec. Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 436 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, Burt appears to
have unreasonably multiplied proceedings by suddenly terminating the deposition.

4

Green Dot’s motion includes a list of 18 categories of testimony and specific
statements Baker has made in the past which Green Dot avers it would have “pursued had
the deposition not been terminated.” Dkt. 273 at 13.
CV-5742 (06/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 11 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O

[REDACTED] CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5742-CAS (PLAx)

Date

Title

June 19, 2017

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORP. ET AL.

However, as observed above, there is little to suggest Burt ended the deposition in bad
faith. Accordingly, section 1927 does not provide a basis for sanctions.
If neither section 1927 nor the Court’s inherent authority provides a basis for relief,
Green Dot requests, in the alternative, leave to file a motion pursuant to Rule 30(d)(2)
and Rule 37.5 Alexsam’s opposition is silent regarding whether discovery sanctions are
appropriate. Instead of reaching the merits of any discovery violations, Alexsam argues:
Defendants have not requested leave to file a discovery motion outside of
time set for discovery. Even if Defendants’ statement request ‘for leave to
submit a motion under Rule 37’ can be considered a ‘motion,’ it is not clear
how it is supported by ‘good cause’ as required by Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16.
Opp’n at 1. In light of Alexsam’s conduct on the last day of expert discovery, the Court
finds good cause for granting Green Dot leave to file a discovery motion narrowly
tailored to the Baker deposition. Green Dot’s request for leave to file such a motion is
hereby granted and expert discovery is hereby reopened for the limited purpose of
permitting Green Dot to file a focused motion related to the Baker deposition.

5

The expert discovery deadline elapsed on the same day as Baker’s deposition,
May 12, 2017.
CV-5742 (06/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 12 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O

[REDACTED] CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-5742-CAS (PLAx)

Title

ALEXSAM, INC. V. GREEN DOT CORP. ET AL.

V.

Date

June 19, 2017

CONCLUSION

Green Dot’s request for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the Court’s
inherent authority is DENIED. Green Dot’s request for leave to file a discovery-related
motion is GRANTED.
The discovery deadline for filing a motion to compel the testimony of Baker is
hereby extended. Green Dot is directed to file such a motion before the Magistrate Judge
no later than July 5, 2017. The Court leaves to the Magistrate Judge scheduling issues
relating to said motion; however, the Court intends to maintain the trial date of
September 5, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-5742 (06/17)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

00
CL

Page 13 of 13