Goes International, AB v. Dodur Ltd. et al

Filing 109

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 104 Motion to Compel. Dodur must, among other things, substitute new counsel into this case by February 6, 2017. See the attached order for further directions. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
GOES INTERNATIONAL, AB,

12

Case No. 14-cv-05666-LB

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL

v.

14

Re: ECF No. 104

DODUR LTD., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

This is a copyright-infringement suit.1 Before the court is plaintiff Goes International, AB’s

19

motion to compel the defendant, Dodur, Ltd., a Chinese software developer, to testify at a

20

deposition in San Francisco, and to produce documents in connection with that deposition.2 The

21

court has already ordered Dodur to produce the documents in question.3 Dodur has not responded

22

to Goes’ motion. Both parties have consented to magistrate jurisdiction.4 The court held a hearing

23

on this motion on January 12, 2017. It now grants Goes’ motion to compel. The court orders

24
See generally (1st Am. Compl. – ECF No. 1). Record citations refer to material contained in the
Electronic Case File (―ECF‖); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of
documents.
1

25
26

2

Motion – ECF No. 104.

27

3

ECF No. 84.

28

4

ECF Nos. 8, 22; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

ORDER — No. 14-cv-05666-LB

1

Dodur: 1) to name and send a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative to be deposed on February

2

20, 2017 in San Francisco in accordance with Goes’ deposition notice; 2) to produce the requested

3

documents by February 6, 2017; and 3) to name a new counsel to represent it in this case by

4

February 6, 2017.

5
PROCEDURAL HISTORY

6

The following events seem the most relevant to this discussion.5 Dodur participated actively in

7

the earlier stages of this case. It answered the complaint.6 It moved to dismiss this suit for lack of

9

personal jurisdiction.7 It opposed Goes’ motion to compel the production of documents related to

10

damages.8 (The court granted that motion — but set no deadline for the production.9) Its lawyers

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

then moved to withdraw, citing Dodur’s non-payment of fees.10 On February 22, 2016, the court

12

granted that motion; the court allowed Dodur’s lawyers to withdraw, but ordered them to

13

―continue to serve on Dodur all papers from the plaintiff and the court until Dodur files a

14

substitution of counsel.‖11 Dodur has not yet named a new lawyer. Nor has it produced any

15

documents.12

16

The plaintiff now moves the court to do two things. First, to order that Dodur — which, again,

17

is a Chinese corporation — produce a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative for deposition in San

18

Francisco on February 20, 2017.13 Second, to order that Dodur produce, by February 6, 2017, ―all

19
20
21

Fuller descriptions of this case appear in the court’s previous orders: one on the defendants’ motion
to dismiss (ECF No. 51 at 1–9) and one on the plaintiff’s earlier motion to compel (ECF No. 84 at 1–
3).
5

6

22

ECF No. 52.

23

ECF Nos. 34, 39. The court denied Dodur’s jurisdictional motion but granted that of its two former
co-defendants. (ECF No. 51.) Which is to say, the court held that it could exercise personal jurisdiction
over Dodur. (Id.)

24

8

See ECF Nos. 69, 74–76, 82.

25

9

ECF No. 84.

7

10

ECF No. 85.

11

ECF No. 89 at 3.

27

12

Lesowitz Decl. – ECF No. 104-1 at 2 (¶ 3).

28

13

See Mot. – ECF No. 104 at 2.

26

ORDER — No. 14-cv-05666-LB

2

1

documents that it is required to produce‖; this includes the damages-related material that the court

2

earlier ordered Dodur to provide to Goes.14 Perhaps more exactly, Goes asks that Dodur be made

3

to produce ―all documents that it previously agreed to produce and that the Court found that Dodur

4

must produce.‖15 And it asks that all such material be produced ―no later than two weeks‖ before

5

the deposition.16
By declaration, Goes states that it attached a notice of deposition to a letter (in both English

6

and Mandarin Chinese) that it emailed on December 1, 2016 to Dodur’s CEO.17 Goes has not

8

provided the court with the actual deposition notice. Its cover letter to Dodur, however, states the

9

basic point of the deposition (to produce a corporate representative to testify), and names the city

10

and proposed date for the deposition (while leaving open the chance that the parties might agree to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

another ―mutually convenient time‖).18 The letter reminded Dodur of the court’s document-

12

production order, as well, and asked Dodur to produce those documents two weeks before any

13

deposition of a Dodur representative.19 Finally, Goes warned Dodur that if it did not agree to the

14

deposition by December 7, 2016, Goes would move to compel the deposition and related

15

production.20

16
ANALYSIS

17
18

1. The Motion to Compel
Goes’ motion is well grounded in all respects. The plaintiff correctly argues that this court can

19
20
21

compel a foreign-national defendant, like Dodur, over whom it has personal jurisdiction, to attend
a deposition in the United States. Strictly speaking, the deposition notice itself suffices to compel

22
14

Id. at 6–7.

23

15

Id. at 6.

24

16

Id.

Lesowitz Decl. – ECF No. 104-1 at 2 (¶ 2), 4–7 (letters). The letter’s recipient is a Mr. Wang Li
Ming, whom Dodur’s former lawyers described as Dodur’s ―CEO.‖ See (Kao Decl. – ECF No. 85-1 at
2 [¶ 4]).
17

25
26

18

Id. at 4.

27

19

Id. at 5.

28

20

Id. at 4–5.

ORDER — No. 14-cv-05666-LB

3

1

such a deposition. See, e.g., Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994) (―[T]here

2

was no abuse of discretion in ordering the depositions [of Hong Kong corporations] to occur in

3

San Francisco.‖); Roberts v. Heim, 130 F.R.D. 430, 437, 438–39 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (ordering Swiss

4

litigant to appear for deposition in San Francisco); Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v.

5

United States Dist. Ct., 482 U.S. 522, 533–46 (1987) (federal procedural rules and Hague

6

Convention are alternate means of obtaining discovery from foreign-national litigants); W.

7

Schwarzer et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶¶ 11:1281 (2016)

8

(―Foreign nationals . . . who are parties to an action are subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction

9

and may be deposed wherever the court directs.‖) (citing GTE Prods. Corp. v. Gee, 115 F.R.D. 67,
68–69 (D. Mass. 1987) (notice itself effective)). And, again, the court has already ordered Dodur

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

to produce the documents that Goes seeks in connection with the deposition.21

12
13

2. Order to Show Cause — Dodur Must Name New Counsel
A corporation — indeed, any business entity — can appear in federal court only through an

14
15

attorney. Pro se corporate representation is not allowed. E.g., Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506

16

U.S. 194, 202 (1993); United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir.

17

1993); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) (―A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other

18

such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court.‖).

19

This court granted Dodur’s former lawyers’ motion to withdraw on February 22, 2016.22

20

Counsel had informed Dodur of its intent to withdraw and, apparently in view of the company’s

21

inability to pay its lawyers, Dodur ―consented to the withdrawal.‖23 The lawyers nonetheless filed

22

one last case-management statement, and appeared at a case-management conference, on Dodur’s

23

behalf.24 The court ordered Dodur’s former attorneys to continue serving Dodur with filings in this

24
25

27
28

21

ECF No. 84.

22

26

ECF No. 89.

23

Kao Decl. – ECF No. 85-1 at 2 (¶¶ 3–4).

24

ECF Nos. 93, 95.

ORDER — No. 14-cv-05666-LB

4

1

suit until Dodur filed a substitution of counsel.25 The latter directive of course should have entailed

2

sending Dodur a copy of the withdrawal order.
That was almost a year ago. Dodur has not yet filed a substitution of counsel. Nor has it

3

otherwise indicated to the court — or, for all that the record shows, to the plaintiff — what it

5

intends to do in this respect. A corporate defendant who fails to substitute counsel after one has

6

withdrawn will eventually find itself subject to default judgment. See, e.g., Solaria Corp. v. T.S.

7

Energie e Risorse, S.R.I., 2014 WL 7205114, *1–2, *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2014) (Conti, J.)

8

(granting Rule 55 default judgment against corporate defendant who failed to substitute counsel

9

for four-and-a-half months after previous lawyers withdrew); City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn

10

Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 128–33 (2nd Cir. 2011) (affirming default judgment against LLC that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

―withdrew its counsel without retaining a substitute‖); cf., e.g., Ringgold Corp. v. Worrall, 880

12

F.2d 1138, 1141 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming default judgment on counterclaims where plaintiff did

13

not attend pretrial conferences and ―fail[ed] to attend‖ the first day of trial).26

14

* * *

15

CONCLUSION

16

For these reasons, the court grants Goes’ motion to compel. The court orders Dodur to do the

17

following:
1. Name a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative and make that person available to
testify at a deposition in San Francisco on February 20, 2016, in compliance with
Goes’ deposition notice.

18
19
20

22

2. Produce all appropriate documents — those that it agreed to produce, those that the
court ordered it to produce in February 2016, and any others that respond to Goes’
requests (and that are otherwise discoverable) — and to ensure that Goes receives
this material by February 6, 2016.

23

3. File a substitution of counsel in this lawsuit by February 6, 2016.

24

In case it proves procedurally necessary to some later act of enforcement, the court alternately

21

25

couches the last item — compelling Dodur to name new counsel — as an order to show cause why

26
25

27

ECF No. at 89 at 3.

26

28

In Solaria, supra, Judge Conti originally gave the corporate defendant 30 days in which to find and
name new counsel. Solaria Corporation, 2014 WL 7205114 at *1.
ORDER — No. 14-cv-05666-LB

5

1

it has not yet substituted in a new attorney to represent it in this lawsuit. The court directs Goes to

2

serve Dodur with a copy of this order.

3

This disposes of ECF No. 104.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: January 12, 2017
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER — No. 14-cv-05666-LB

6