Symantec Corporation v. Veeam Software Corporation

Filing 111

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 108 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/1/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 No. C 12-00700 SI SYMANTEC CORPORATION, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff, v. 14 VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION, 15 Defendant. / 16 17 Currently before the Court is plaintiff Symantec’s request for an order requiring defendant 18 Veeam to make its employee Alexey Vasilyev available for deposition. Docket No. 108. In discovery, 19 Veeam identified Mr. Vasilyev as a “Product Manager” and one of three most knowledgeable people 20 at Veeam regarding the design, research, and development of Veeam’s accused products. Veeam has 21 also disclosed Mr. Vasilyev as the Deputy Director of Information Technologies. Symantec contends 22 that Mr. Vasilyev should be produced as a “managing agent” under Rule 30, especially in light of his 23 role as a co-founder and current part owner of Veeam. 24 Veeam opposes producing Mr. Vasilyev for deposition because of the burden of producing him 25 (given that he resides in Russia) and his deposition testimony will be duplicative of three witnesses who 26 Veeam has agreed to produce: Veeam CEO (Ratmir Timashev), CTO (Andrei Baranov) and Product 27 Manager (Anton Gostev). Finally, Veeam contends that Mr. Vasilyev is not a “managing agent” of 28 Veeam and his current role “overseeing R&D work” is simply to “show proof of concept” for new and 1 modified Veeam products at the direction of Messrs. Baranov and Gostev. 2 The Court finds that Mr. Vasilyev should be produced. However, the date for Mr. Vasilyev 3 deposition should be set at least two weeks after the conclusion of the depositions of Messrs. Timashev, 4 Baranov and Gostev. If Veeam contends that Mr. Vasilyev’s testimony will still be cumulative after 5 the conclusion of the other depositions, Veeam may seek relief from this Court and will be required to 6 show why Mr. Vasilyev’s testimony will be duplicative to testimony already received. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Dated: April 1, 2013 SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?