Ariba, Inc. v. Rearden Commerce, Inc. et al

Filing 79

ORDER by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte granting in part and denying in part 48 Motion to Compel (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ARIBA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C-11-01619 EDL
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

v.
REARDEN COMMERCE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

/

13
14

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to produce a witness for

15

deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), and to produce documents as

16

requested in Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. For the reasons stated at the hearing and in

17

this Order, the Court grants in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

18

On September 6, 2011, the parties submitted a letter to the Court stating, among other things,

19

that they had agreed that: “. . . Ariba will conduct a prompt deposition of the person or persons at

20

Ketera and Rearden most knowledgeable of their use of Ariba’s IP pursuant to previously served

21

30(b)(6) deposition notices, subject to defendants’ objections.” On September 27, 2011, pursuant to

22

that agreement, Plaintiff served a notice on both Defendants for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and set

23

the deposition for October 18, 2011. See Jacobs Decl. Ex. 1, 2. Defendants offered Rearden’s Chief

24

Technology Officer, Dan Pritchett, as the Rule 30(b)(6) witness.

25

Plaintiff argues that Mr. Pritchett was unprepared to answer questions on numerous topics,

26

given Plaintiff’s view that the topics in the deposition notice seek relevant information regarding

27

Defendants’ “use” of Plaintiff’s intellectual property that go directly to the claims in this case.

28

Defendants, however, argue that Mr. Pritchett was adequately prepared for the deposition, given
Defendants’ view that the deposition was only meant to be a high level deposition to provide the

1

parties with enough information about the types of issues that fall within the broad category of “use”

2

of Plaintiff’s intellectual property to frame further discussions about the proper phasing of

3

discovery. As stated at the hearing, although the parties have differing opinions on the scope of

4

discovery they agreed to, at this point in the case, the Court orders that discovery on all topics,

5

except for purely damages issues, shall go forward and the parties should continue to confer on how

6

to proceed in an orderly fashion.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2011
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2