Federal Trade Commission v. DIRECTV, Inc. et al
Filing
133
Discovery Order re: 130 Discovery Letter Brief re FTC 30(b)(6) Topic 1. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/6/2016. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Case No. 15-cv-01129-HSG (MEJ)
Plaintiff,
8
DISCOVERY ORDER
v.
Re: Dkt. No. 130
9
10
DIRECTV, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
The Court is in receipt of the parties’ discovery dispute letter concerning Plaintiff Federal
14
Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) Deposition Topic 1, which
15
seeks the following testimony: “The results of any and all research, surveys or tests, performed by
16
or for [Defendants DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC (collectively, “DIRECTV”)] concerning the
17
design, location or wording of disclosures in DIRECTV advertisements, websites or other
18
marketing materials of material terms, including price, required subscriber agreement, early
19
cancellation fee, or the existence of a negative option.” Jt. Ltr., Dkt. No. 130; id., Ex. A (Notice of
20
Dep.), Dkt. No. 130-1.
21
The FTC argues this information is relevant because, in its Complaint, the FTC alleges
22
DIRECTV’s ads violate the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act by failing
23
to adequately disclose the actual price of its satellite-television subscription service, the full length
24
of its required contract, and DIRECTV’s negative-option marketing to sell premium channels. Jt.
25
Ltr. at 2. As the central issue in the case is whether necessary disclosures are made in a manner
26
that consumers can see and understand, the FTC maintains that surveys and tests performed by or
27
for DIRECTV regarding price, the required length of subscriber commitment, and the premium
28
channel negative option are clearly relevant. Id.
1
In response, DIRECTV argues the FTC’s notice is overbroad and vague because it seeks
2
testimony on the “results” of research, “which could include a myriad of topics some relevant,
3
many not.” Id. at 4. DIRECTV further argues the topic requires it to speculate as to which terms
4
the FTC believes are material because it seeks testimony on consumer perception related to
5
“material terms” of the subscriber agreement. Id. DIRECTV requests the Court limit testimony to
6
the following topic: “Conclusions reached by DIRECTV, based on non-privileged research or
7
studies it has conducted, legal requirements, and/or data available to it, regarding the adequacy of
8
disclosures in its advertising of introductory program package subscription pricing, the subscriber
9
agreement, early cancellation fees, and premium channel offers.” Id.
10
Having reviewed the parties’ positions, the Court finds the FTC’s Topic 1 both relevant
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
and appropriately limited in scope. Topic 1 does not include a “myriad of topics,” but instead
12
focuses on “research, surveys or tests, performed by or for DIRECTV,” and it limits material
13
terms to “price, required subscriber agreement, early cancellation fee, or the existence of a
14
negative option.” Further, although DIRECTV seeks to limit the request to the “conclusions” it
15
reached, this would prevent the FTC from discovering relevant information, such as the objectives
16
of DIRECTV’s advertising research and the data it obtained from its studies.
17
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the FTC’s motion to compel.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
21
22
Dated: April 6, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?