Verinata Health, Inc. et al v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc et al

Filing 128

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE #126 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/21/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

No. C 12-05501 SI

VERINATA HEALTH, INC., et al.,

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Plaintiffs,
v.
ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,

14

Defendant.

15

/

16

Now pending before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery letter. Docket No. 126. In the joint

17

letter, defendant Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (“Ariosa”) moves for an order compelling plaintiffs Verinata

18

Health, Inc. and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (collectively

19

“Verinata”) to produce witnesses in response to Ariosa’s first deposition notices pursuant to Federal

20

Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Ariosa’s motion

21

to compel.

22
23

DISCUSSION

24

Ariosa’s deposition notices request one or more corporate designees to testify on subjects related

25

to plaintiffs’ preservation, organization, and collection of documents relevant to this dispute. Docket

26

No. 126 at 1. Ariosa argues that plaintiffs’ non-custodial document production to date has been

27

“anemic” and that these depositions are necessary to test plaintiffs’ assertion that they have provided

28

a substantially complete non-custodial document production. Id. at 2.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides: “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any

2

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense—including the existence,

3

description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the

4

identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter.” Under the Federal Rules,

5

discovery is relevant “if [it] appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

6

evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) allows a party to name

7

as the deponent an artificial entity, and the “named organization must then designate one or more

8

officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf.”

9

The requested depositions are expressly allowed under Rules 26(b)(1) and 30(b)(6). In opposing

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

the motion to compel, plaintiffs note that the Court has recently adopted discovery guidelines that

11

encourage parties to engage in informal discussions, rather than depositions, to determine the relevant

12

scope of custodial discovery. Docket No. 126 at 4. Although the Court encourages parties to resolve

13

issues related to the scope of custodial discovery through informal discussions, the requested discovery

14

is still permissible under the Federal Rules. In addition, the Court does not find that the burden or

15

expense of the requested discovery would outweigh its likely benefit when considering the needs of the

16

case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the

17

action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. Moreover, the Court rejects

18

plaintiffs’ contention that Ariosa has not been diligent in seeking the requested discovery. Accordingly,

19

the Court GRANTS Ariosa’s motion to compel plaintiffs’ to produce witnesses in response to Ariosa’s

20

first deposition notices pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). This order resolves

21

Docket No. 126.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
Dated: April 21, 2014
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2