Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc.

Filing 518

(Redacted) Discovery Order re ECF No. 510. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 6/6/2019. (tshlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

FINJAN, INC.,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Case No. 17-cv-05659-WHA (TSH)
ORDER REGARDING SHLOMO
TOUBOUL’S DEPOSITION

v.
JUNIPER NETWORK, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 510

Defendants.

15
16
17
18

The parties have filed a joint discovery letter brief concerning whether Finjan may depose
its founder, Schlomo Touboul at all, and if so, whether it may do so in Israel. ECF No. 510.
Juniper argues that Finjan is supposedly flouting a ruling by Judge Alsup in December

19

2018, but the Court is unable to understand that argument. During the first trial, Finjan tried to

20

introduce videotaped deposition testimony Touboul provided in another lawsuit, and Judge Alsup

21

said no. Trial Tr. at 204:21-23 (“The Court: No way we’re going to let that. You’ve got to bring

22

him yourself. You can’t get away with a deposition from some other case.”) & Tr. 205:14-17

23

(“The Court: That’s what it is, and you’re not going to get away with an in-the-can – the key guy,

24

an in-the-can presentation from some guy who deposed him in the year 2015 in a different case.

25

That’s beyond the pale.”). Whether a deposition in a different lawsuit can be admitted at trial has

26

nothing to do with whether or where Touboul should be deposed in this case.

27
28

Next, Juniper contends that this deposition would put Finjan above its 10-deposition limit
in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. Both sides agree Finjan has deposed eight individual

1

witnesses. Both sides also agree that Finjan has also deposed two Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses

2

(Icasiano and Gupta) in depositions where Finjan’s questioning was less than three and a half

3

hours. Under Judge Alsup Standing Order, those do not count toward the deposition limit.

4

Standing Order ¶ 32(b) (“Each witness-designee deposed for one half-day or more in a FRCP

5

30(b)(6) deposition shall count as a single deposition for purposes of the deposition limit under

6

FRCP 26 or under any case management order setting a limit on the number of depositions. . . . If

7

two designees, to take another example, are interrogated, each for one half-day or more, then they

8

count as two depositions”) (emphasis added). Juniper’s concern that this could allow for large

9

numbers of short 30(b)(6) depositions is not correct because the preceding paragraph of the

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Standing Order limits a party to ten subjects for the entire case. Standing Order ¶ 32(a).
The parties disagree on whether Finjan has deposed another Rule 30(b)(6) witness (Islah)

12

for a half-day or more. The Court has reviewed the time-stamped transcript (ECF No. 514) and

13

concludes that Finjan’s examination fell just short of three and a half hours. Therefore, Finjan has

14

taken a total of eight depositions.

15

Accordingly, Finjan can depose Touboul without going over the 10-deposition limit. The

16

next question is where. Judge Alsup’s Standing Order requires the parties “to schedule

17

depositions at mutually-convenient times and places.” Standing Order ¶ 26. Israel might be

18

convenient for Finjan and Touboul, but it is not mutually convenient because it is inconvenient

19

and expensive for Juniper. In addition, the parties early on stipulated “that depositions of party

20

employees will occur in a mutually agreeable location within the Northern District of California,

21

unless otherwise agreed.” Joint Case Management Statement, ECF No. 31 at 7 (emphasis added).

22

Finjan’s argument that Touboul, who is the founder of the company, is not an “employee” within

23

the meaning of that agreement because he is a “consultant and advisor” to Finjan, being paid more

24

than [REDACTED], is overly technical hairsplitting. Finjan is wrong that it lacks control over

25

Touboul. His consulting agreement with the company states that he “[REDACTED],” ECF No.

26

509-8 ¶ 2.3 (emphasis added).

27

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that (1) Finjan may depose Touboul, and (2) the

28

deposition must take place in the Northern District of California unless Juniper agrees to a
2

1

different location.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: June 6, 2019

6
7
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

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
3