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)

Download PDF
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

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?