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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?