MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.

Filing 265

ORDER RE: FREESCALES DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF RE: DISPUTE OVER REMAINING TIME FOR RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION TESTIMONY (Dkt. No. 241). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on /23/2013. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

MEDIATEK, INC.,
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

16

Case No. 11-5341 YGR (JSC)
ORDER RE: FREESCALE’S
DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF RE:
DISPUTE OVER REMAINING TIME
FOR RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION
TESTIMONY (Dkt. No. 241)

Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Now pending before the Court is the discovery letter brief of Defendant Freescale
Semiconductor Inc. (“Freescale”) regarding a dispute over the time remaining for any further
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony of Plaintiff MediaTek, Inc. (“MediaTek”) witnesses.
(Dkt. No. 241.) Freescale did not file the letter brief as a joint statement as required by this
Court’s Standing Order. Nevertheless, as MediaTek has filed an opposition to the letter brief
(Dkt. No. 250), and in the interests of expediency, the Court has considered both parties’
submissions and hereby finds that Freescale has exceeded the time allowed under the
Scheduling Order. 1

26
27
28

1

Freescale’s letter brief requests that the Court set a briefing schedule for a joint letter
addressing this dispute; however, no further briefing is required—the parties should have laid
out all their arguments in the pending submissions.

to MediaTek’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony of Freescale’s witnesses. (Dkt. No. 208.)

3

The Court found that MediaTek had exceeded the agreed upon 42-hour limit for Rule

4

30(b)(6) deposition testimony in large part because MediaTek had failed to manage its time

5

with respect to the depositions both in terms of how the time was recorded and how the time

6

was used. As the Court noted, with respect to exclusion of time, the party taking the

7

deposition is required to maintain a record of what should be excluded from the time “so each

8

party is put on notice as to how its opponent is calculating the time [giving] parties an

9

opportunity to address how time should be calculated at the beginning of the process, rather

10

than at the end.” (Id. at 4:25-27.) Further, “[w]hen confronted with time limits, whether at

11
Northern District of California

The Court previously considered a related request regarding the calculation of time as

2

United States District Court

1

deposition or at trial, parties have to make choices about what is most important.” (Id. at 5:9-

12

10.)

13

Here, the parties’ positions are reversed with Freescale now arguing that it has not

14

exceeded the 42-time limit and MediaTek countering that Freescale has done so by more than

15

14 hours. The dispute centers on whether translation time should be counted towards the 42-

16

hour limit. Freescale contends that for the Mandarin-speaking deponents the time should be

17

halved such that one-hour of testimony from these deponents actually counts as only 30

18

minutes. However, there is no indication in the record that Freescale ever suggested this

19

calculation mechanism to MediaTek; rather, the record reflects that the parties agreed that

20

“Messrs. Yang, Shieh, and Tsou will be available to provide 14 hours of testimony since they

21

will testify in Mandarin and thus will require translation.” (Dkt. No. 250-3 at 2.) Notably

22

absent from this email from Freescale’s counsel confirming the agreement with counsel for

23

MediaTek is any indication that although these witnesses would provide 14 hours of

24

testimony each, their testimony would only count for 7 hours each; that MediaTek agreed to

25

make these witnesses available for a longer period of time due to the translation issues does

26

not suggest an understanding that this additional testimony time would not count toward the

27

42-hour limit. To the extent Freescale thought otherwise, it should have confirmed as much

28

with MediaTek before the depositions occurred. Just as MediaTek should have confirmed at

2

1

the beginning of its Rule 30(b)(6) depositions whether particular questions were directed at

2

the witness in their individual, rather than designee capacity, Freescale should have confirmed

3

its intention to only count 50% of the testimony time of MediaTek’s Mandarin speaking

4

designees towards the parties’ 42-hour limit. Freescale, as the party taking the depositions,

5

bore the burden of ensuring that it made a contemporaneous record regarding the calculation

6

of time and what time did and did not count towards the parties’ agreed upon limit. As

7

Freescale failed to do so, its belated efforts to impose a restriction on the time calculation are

8

unavailing.

designate further Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses on various topics. The disputes are thus contingent

11
Northern District of California

Four of Freescale’s pending discovery disputes seek an order compelling MediaTek to

10

United States District Court

9

upon Freescale having additional Rule 30(b)(6) deposition time. Because the Court concludes

12

that they do not have any time remaining, those requests are moot. Accordingly, Docket Nos.

13

190-3, 193-3, and 194-3 are DENIED AS MOOT. 2
This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 190-3, 193-3, 194-3, 241, 245, 247, 250.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: September 23, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court will separately address Docket No. 192-3 as it seeks both further Rule 30(b)(6)
testimony and production of related documents.
3