Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. et al v. Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 296

ORDER by Judge Breyer denying 292 motion for relief from denial of motion to compel. (crblc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2018)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10

v.
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

LILITH GAMES (SHANGHAI) CO.
LTD., et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendants.

13
14

Case No. 15-cv-04084-CRB

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), Plaintiffs move for relief from a magistrate

15

judge’s order denying their motion to compel a 30(b)(6) deposition of Lilith Games in

16

California, rather than Hong Kong. See Disc. Order (dkt. 291). When a party objects to

17

“purely legal determinations” in a non-dispositive discovery order, as here, the district

18

court can modify or set aside the order only if those determinations are “contrary to law.”

19

McAdam v. State Nat. Ins. Co., Inc., 15 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1013 (S.D. Cal. 2014); Peters v.

20

Cox, 3:15–cv–00472–RCJ–VPC, 2018 WL 2323523, at *1 (D. Nev. May 22, 2018). Such

21

determinations are only contrary to law if the magistrate judge abused her discretion—that

22

is, if she “committed a clear error of judgment in reaching [her] conclusion after weighing

23

the relevant factors.” Id. (quoting United States v. BNS Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir.

24

1988)).

25

The Cadent factors are as follows: (1) “location of counsel for the parties in the

26

forum district”; (2) “the number of corporate representatives a party is seeking to depose”;

27

(3) “the likelihood of significant discovery disputes arising which would necessitate

28

resolution by the forum court”; (4) “whether the persons sought to be deposed often

1

engage in travel for business purposes”; and (5) “the equities with regard to the nature of

2

the claim and the parties’ relationship.” Cadent Ltd. v. 3M Unitek Corp., 232 F.R.D. 625,

3

629 (C.D. Cal. 2005). The first, second, and fourth factors regard the parties’ convenience,

4

and do not weigh particularly heavily here: a plane flight for a few people in one direction

5

or the other is not much of a burden on either side. The third factor regards the court’s

6

convenience, and also does not weigh in one direction or another. Plaintiffs have not

7

pointed to any reason taking the deposition in Hong Kong will inconvenience the Court or

8

make disputes any more difficult to resolve.

9

The only relevant factor, therefore, is the fifth. This is clearly the factor that the
magistrate judge had in mind when she pointed out that Plaintiffs initially noticed the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

deposition in Hong Kong, writing, “The time for Plaintiffs to research the burden and

12

expense of taking depositions in Hong Kong was before they noticed depositions in Hong

13

Kong, not after.” Disc. Order. Given that the deposition was originally noticed in Hong

14

Kong, she found that the equities favored Defendants. There is no clear error of judgment

15

here. The motion is DENIED.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: July 12, 2018
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2