United States Of America v. Bazaarvoice, Inc.
Filing
71
ORDER GRANTING IN PART BAZAARVOICES REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL HOURS FOR THIRD-PARTY DEPOSITIONS (Re: ECF No. 66) by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler:Granting in part 66 Discovery Letter Brief. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Northern District of California
10
San Francisco Division
UNITED STATES,
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
No. C 13-00133 EMC (LB)
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
BAZAARVOICE’S REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL HOURS FOR THIRDPARTY DEPOSITIONS
v.
13
BAZAARVOICE, INC,
14
15
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
16
17
[Re: ECF No. 66 ]
INTRODUCTION
The United States filed this lawsuit for equitable relief against Bazaarvoice, alleging that its June
18
2012 acquisition of PowerReviews violated section 7 of the Clayton Act. See Complaint, ECF No.
19
1.1 Bazaarvoice sells product ratings and reviews platforms that allow companies to collect,
20
organize, and display customer-generated ratings and reviews. A high-level view of the case is that
21
PowerReviews was a lower-priced competitor, Bazaarvoice’s sales were direct and negotiated
22
client-by-client, PowerReviews was the only competition for direct sales, and – even if
23
PowerReviews was only an ankle-biter – the acquisition affected the pricing and a competitive
24
model that (without PowerReviews) would allow Bazaarvoice to fashion a price that would match
25
what the customer would pay. See Complaint, ¶¶ 27-29.
26
The parties have a discovery dispute about Bazaarvoice’s request for additional hours for third-
27
28
1
Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronicallygenerated page numbers at the top of the document.
C 13-00133 EMC (LB)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
1
party depositions. The court held a hearing on June 11, 2013 and orders an updated initial witness
2
list, a deposition schedule, and an additional 20 hours of non-party depositions pursuant to the
3
restrictions in this order.
4
ANALYSIS
5
This case is on a fast track. The tension here is between Defendant’s ambitious discovery plan
6
and a short time line to trial. The district court limited depositions to 170 hours for each side (with
7
a total of 90 hours each allocated to non-party witnesses). Order, ECF No. 29 at 2. In setting the
8
cap, the district court said the following:
9
10
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
Here’s what I’m going to do. I do think 90 hours, again, is a fair number to start with. Again, if
you find that you need more time, you need a lot more witnesses, you can demonstrate cause, I
think without much difficulty, and ask the Magistrate Judge to lift the cap.
ECF No. 38 at 16:2-6.
At the June 11 hearing, the government proffered that it had taken 40 of 80 hours of party
13
depositions and 33 of 90 hours of non-party depositions, and Bazaarvoice has taken 70 of 90 hours
14
of non-party depositions. With two-and-one-half weeks to go, Bazaarvoice wants an additional 60
15
hours of non-party depositions (although it does not expect that it can use all the hours) to add to the
16
20 hours it has left. (When the parties filed their joint letter brief on May 28, 2013, Bazaarvoice
17
apparently had about half of its hours left. See Joint Letter Brief, ECF No. 66 at 1.)
18
To boil down the parties’ positions, the government’s view is that the depositions are of marginal
19
relevance. It thinks that the case should come in at trial through expert testimony and the business
20
documents that are the contemporaneous records of the competitive dynamics in the market place.
21
Id. at 4. It disputes the utility of customer witnesses, who at best show only a lack of effect on
22
competition right now. Id. It believes that Bazaarvoice is playing discovery games to make it
23
harder for the United States to develop its case-in-chief, and it believes everyone would be better
24
served by focusing on trial. See id. at 4-5. Bazaarvoice, by contrast, views the government as being
25
less than forthcoming about its theory of the case (as its position in the last dispute about the
26
sufficiency of the contention interrogatories shows), and – as it has shown throughout the litigation
27
by its push to trial – is concerned about the case’s impact on its business model. It disputes any
28
intent to create an inappropriate burden and says that the depositions will illuminate the competitive
C 13-00133 EMC (LB)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
2
1
effect (or lack thereof). Id. at 2-3. It also is conducting and will conduct many short depositions (45
2
to 90 minutes) by telephone. Id.
3
As the undersigned said at the hearing and previously when ruling on the issues about contention
4
interrogatories, its view is that the government is presenting its theory of the case now and as it
5
evolves, and what the disagreements show is not a lack of forthcomingness by the government and
6
instead a fundamental disagreement about the case. See Order, ECF No. 57 at 3-6. On the flip side,
7
Bazaarvoice’s approach to establish competitive effect at some point becomes repetitive and of
8
diminishing utility, but the court accepts now Bazaarvoice’s views on utility and relevance (within
9
reasonable parameters) and does not see what is happening as sandbagging.
10
The question then is what is reasonable. It is hard to tell on this record. The court ordered the
following, which seems the appropriate balancing of all the interests and imposes a rough
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
proportionality of deposition time.
13
First, the court ordered an additional 20 hours of non-party depositions for Bazaarvoice.
14
Second, the parties disclosed their preliminary fact witness lists yesterday. Bazaarvoice’s
15
preliminary count is 130. Bazaarvoice said that of course it was not going to call that many
16
witnesses (and the trial model does not permit that overkill), but that is not very helpful now. The
17
court ordered that the parties supplement their preliminary witness lists with a short (one line or so)
18
summary of the facts that the witnesses are expected to testify to. This is triage, so the order is not
19
meant to set positions in stone (but the court also expects diligence). As part of this process, the
20
parties should prioritize and designate – to the extent that they can – their fifteen most important
21
witnesses. (The court recognizes that this implicates trial strategy, but the one-line summary
22
probably is not a strategy-breaker for anyone.)
23
Third, the parties should exchange their proposed deposition schedule for the remainder of fact
24
discovery and should designate the approximate length of the depositions, locations, and whether the
25
proposed depositions are in-person or by telephone. The court’s view is that most of the non-party
26
witnesses with “new” hours should be telephonic. Given that they are taking between 45 to 90
27
minutes, there probably is a questionnaire approach to the depositions, and the court’s view also is
28
that the government probably can minimize burdens on the trial team by deploying newer lawyers
C 13-00133 EMC (LB)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
3
1
2
who at least will get the deposition experience.
Bazaarvoice suggested that the 20 additional hours were not enough. The government said that
3
they probably were too many (although again, the court’s view is that burden on the government can
4
be mitigated by outsourcing telephone depositions away from the trial team). Given the effect on
5
Bazaarvoice’s business, the court’s view is that a sufficient illumination of the fact lay of the land is
6
an important systemic value, and at the same time, abbreviated time lines means that all stones
7
probably cannot be overturned.
8
9
10
This disposes of ECF No. 66.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 11, 2013
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
CONCLUSION
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 13-00133 EMC (LB)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
4
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?