Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al

Filing 720

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 545 Motion to Compel Deposition of Roberto Pieraccini. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LOOP AI LABS INC, Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR) Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 ANNA GATTI, et al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF ROBERTO PIERACCINI Re: Dkt. No. 545 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 The court has received Defendant Almawave USA, Inc.’s (“Almawave”) unilateral 12 13 discovery letter brief regarding the deposition of Roberto Pieraccini and Plaintiff Loop AI Labs 14 Inc.’s (“Loop”) opposition thereto. [Docket Nos. 545, 573.] This dispute is appropriate for 15 resolution without a hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 16 I. 17 DISCUSSION On March 11, 2016, the court granted Almawave leave to file a unilateral letter brief 18 regarding its motion to compel the deposition of Pieraccini, who is a member of Plaintiff’s Board 19 of Advisors. [Docket No. 473.] On March 22, 2016, following receipt of the briefing on the 20 motion to compel, (Docket Nos. 481, 489), the court ordered Plaintiff to produce Pieraccini for up 21 to three hours of deposition at a location convenient to the witness. [Docket No. 511.] 22 Plaintiff refused to comply with the court’s order to produce Pieraccini for deposition. 23 Almawave now moves to compel Plaintiff’s compliance with the March 22, 2016 order. It asserts 24 that it has repeatedly requested dates for Pieraccini’s deposition from Plaintiff’s counsel to no 25 avail. [Docket No. 545 Ex. A.] Almawave seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with the 26 March 22, 2016 order and to immediately offer dates for Pieraccini’s deposition. It also seeks 27 sanctions. 28 Plaintiff filed its opposition to Almawave’s motion on April 5, 2016. Later that day, 1 Plaintiff filed before Judge Gilliam a motion for relief from the court’s March 22, 2016 order. 2 [Docket No. 574.] Plaintiff did not move to stay the court’s March 22, 2016 order. On May 16, 3 2016, Judge Gilliam summarily denied Plaintiff’s motion for relief. [Docket No. 683.] 4 In its opposition, Plaintiff repeats its arguments in opposition to Almawave’s original 5 motion to compel. It also argues for the first time that Pieraccini is not an officer, director, or 6 managing agent of Loop and thus is not a person subject to deposition by notice under Federal 7 Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1). This argument, which Plaintiff did not raise in the original 8 motion to compel briefing,1 apparently contradicts Plaintiff’s counsel’s earlier representation to 9 Almawave that Pieraccini is represented by Plaintiff’s counsel and may only be deposed pursuant to notice, as opposed to a subpoena. See Docket No. 481 at 2. Accordingly, the court will not 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 consider the argument that Plaintiff is unable to produce Pieraccini for deposition. Almawave’s 12 motion to compel Plaintiff to comply with the March 22, 2016 order and produce Pieraccini for 13 deposition is GRANTED. Within seven days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall propose at 14 least two possible dates for Pieraccini’s deposition to take place in the next 30 days, or as soon 15 thereafter is convenient to Almawave. The court will address Almawave’s request for sanctions at a later time. The court is in the 16 17 process of working through the myriad discovery motions filed in the case. When that process is 18 complete, the court will order one additional round of briefing regarding all conduct that may be 19 sanctionable, including Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the March 22, 2016 order. 20 II. For the foregoing reasons, Almawave’s motion to compel Plaintiff to comply with the 21 22 court’s March 22, 2016 order and produce Pieraccini for deposition is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 CONCLUSION Dated: June 3, 2016 ______________________________________ Donna M. Ryu United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 1 28 Plaintiff also raised this argument in its motion for relief from the March 22, 2016 order, which, as noted, Judge Gilliam denied. [See Docket No. 574.] 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?