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

Filing 378

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY #374 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/16/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VERINATA HEALTH, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

Re: Dkt. No. 374
ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

v.

9
10

Case No. 12-cv-05501-SI

12
13

Before the Court is a joint discovery letter from the parties. Dkt. No. 374. Ariosa seeks an

14

order compelling a second deposition of Dr. Fan, a former Illumina scientist who resides in Hong

15

Kong. See id. On April 11, 2017, Ariosa deposed Dr. Fan in Redwood Shores, California (the

16

“April 11 deposition”).1 Based on the parties’ statements and excerpts of the transcript, the April

17

11 deposition appears to have been somewhat contentious (at least as between counsel). At no

18

time during the deposition did either party contact the Court to resolve any issues.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Ariosa asks the Court to order plaintiffs to produce Dr. Fan for an additional four hours of
deposition testimony at plaintiff’s expense, based on plaintiff’s counsel’s purportedly obstructive
conduct and witness coaching during the April 11 deposition. Dr. Fan is a named inventor on the
’794 patent, and “was designated by Plaintiffs as their Rule 30(b)(6) witness concerning
conception and reduction to practice of that patent.” Joint Statement (Dkt. No. 374) at 1. During
the April 11 deposition, plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly objected to certain lines of questioning
including, but not limited to, defense counsel’s requests for Dr. Fan to compare an Ariosa product
schematic to the claims of the ’794 patent.

26
27
28

1

In response to another recent discovery dispute, the Court ordered that Dr. Fan be
deposed in-person in California, rather than in Hong Kong or remotely via video conference. See
Dkt. Nos. 341, 345.

1

The Court has reviewed the transcript provided and counsels’ letter. Without determining

2

who is the more “hard-edged” of the counsel doing the questioning, it appears that frustration and

3

irritation was mutual and freely expressed. Under all the circumstances presented, the Court does

4

not find that it would be appropriate to order additional deposition testimony of Dr. Fan at this

5

time.

6

testimony.

Accordingly, the Court will not compel Illumina to produce Dr. Fan for additional

7

This order resolves Dkt. No. 374.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: May 16, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

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