Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. v. Kozumi USA Corp. et al

Filing 144

ORDER RE: JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING DANIEL HSU DEPOSITION (Dkt. No. 141-1). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC.,

13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 12-cv-2582 CW (JSC)
ORDER RE: JOINT STATEMENT
REGARDING DANIEL HSU
DEPOSITION (Dkt. No. 141-1)

15
16
17

KOZUMI USA CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Now pending before the Court is a Joint Statement regarding a discovery dispute
wherein Plaintiff seeks to compel certain discovery regarding non-party Daniel Hsu. (Dkt.
No. 141-1.) After carefully considering the arguments and briefing submitted, the Court
concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and DENIES Plaintiff’s
request without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence.
DISCUSSON
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to take all reasonable steps to have
Daniel Hsu produce documents and appear for a deposition. Daniel Hsu, a resident of
Taiwan, is a non-party and the brother of Defendant William Hsu. Plaintiff alleges that

1

Daniel Hsu worked on Kozumi matters under William Hsu’s direction and was involved in

2

the counterfeiting activities that are alleged in this action.

3

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1), a party must produce items in

control is not required; rather, “control is defined as the legal right to obtain documents upon

6

demand.” United States v. Int’l Union of Petrol. & Indus. Workers, AFL–CIO, 870 F.2d

7

1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989). “Thus, [a] party responding to a Rule 34 production request ... is

8

under an affirmative duty to seek that information reasonably available to [it] from [its]

9

employees, agents, or others subject to [its] control.” Hill v. Eddie Bauer, 242 F.R.D. 556,

10

560 (C.D.Cal.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The party seeking the documents

11
Northern District of California

“the responding party’s possession, custody, or control.” Actual possession, custody or

5

United States District Court

4

bears the burden of demonstrating that the responding party exercises such control.” Doe v.

12

AT & T W. Disability Benefits Program, No. 11-4603, 2012 WL 1669882, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

13

May 14, 2012) (internal citation omitted).

14

Plaintiff seeks emails from Daniel Hsu’s Kozumi email address and his gmail address.

15

Defendants represent that they have produced all of Daniel Hsu’s emails from the Kozumi

16

email address. Plaintiff questions the veracity of this representation given that William Hsu

17

testified that he did not collect emails from Daniel Hsu’s Kozumi email account because he

18

did not have access to Daniel’s account. (Dkt. No. 141-5, Ex. A, 179:10-14.) William Hsu

19

testified that instead, Defendants have produced all emails from Defendant William Hsu’s

20

email account which they contend basically covers everything because William Hsu

21

instructed Daniel Hsu and other individuals using a Kozumi email address to copy him on all

22

emails about Kozumi orders and shipments. (Id. at 179:23-181:6.)

23

Defendants are obligated to produce responsive documents in their custody or control.

24

The key question here is what level of control Defendants have over non-party Daniel Hsu.

25

Defendants contend that Daniel Hsu was not an employee of Kozumi and he was only given

26

a Kozumi email address because William Hsu gave one to everyone who was helping him.

27

According to William Hsu’s deposition testimony Daniel Hsu did web design for Kozumi as

28

well as inspections and follow up on orders placed by Kozumi. (Dkt. No. 141-1, Ex. A,

2

1

146:8-177:10.) Defendants also contend that Daniel Hsu was not on Kozumi’s payroll and

2

was instead paid by Netcom—a company wholly owned by William Hsu; however, Daniel

3

Hsu’s salary is listed on a spreadsheet regarding “Kozumi Monthly Expenses.” (Dkt. No.

4

141-1, Ex. B.) This evidence suggests, at a minimum, that Daniel Hsu was a consultant for

5

Kozumi. According to documents in the record Daniel Hsu was continuing to use his

6

Kozumi email address for Kozumi related business after the date on which the document

7

requests at issue were served. (Dkt. Nos. 141-5, Exs. R & S.) Thus, at the time the

8

document request was served he was still acting as a consultant.

9

The problem here is that unless William Hsu was copied on the email, Kozumi no

Northern District of California

longer has a copy because Kozumi’s document retention “policy” was only to retain emails

11
United States District Court

10

from William Hsu’s email account on the Kozumi server. (Dkt. No. 141-3 ¶ 7.) Although

12

Plaintiff argues that Defendants therefore “failed to preserve evidence,” Plaintiff does not

13

actually challenge Kozumi’s document retention practice at this time; instead, Plaintiff asks

14

the Court to order Defendants “to take all reasonable steps” to have Daniel Hsu produce

15

documents. William Hsu responds that he asked Daniel Hsu to produce the documents and

16

appear for deposition, but Daniel has not provided him any documents and has declined to

17

appear for a deposition. (Dkt. No. 141-3 ¶ 5.) At bottom, then, Plaintiff wants the Court to

18

order Defendants to obtain documents from Daniel Hsu and force him to appear for

19

deposition. Plaintiff, however, has not cited any authority for the proposition that the Court

20

can order Defendants to do more than it has in the absence of a showing that the emails in

21

Daniel Hsu’s possession are within Defendants’ legal control.

22

“It is not enough that a party may have a practical ability to obtain the requested

23

documents from an affiliated organization, because the other entity could legally—and

24

without breaching any contract—continue to refuse to turn over such documents.” In re

25

Citric Acid Lit., 191 F.3d 1090, 1107 (9th Cir.1999) (internal quotations omitted). In In

26

Micron Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., No. C06-80096, 2006 WL 1646133, at *1 (N.D.

27

Cal. June 14, 2006), the court considered whether party SPIL, which wholly owned non-

28

party SUI, had legal control of documents in the control of SUI for purposes of Federal Rule

3

were separate legal entities and there was no evidence of any contract between the two

3

companies which would give SPIL the right to demand documents from SUI. Id; see also

4

United States v. Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 1450 (9th

5

Cir. 1989) (holding that the International Union of Petroleum and Industrial Workers did not

6

have control over the election records of local unions based in part on an examination of the

7

union contract); In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Litig., No. 09-CV-01967,

8

2012 WL 161240, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012) (holding that the NCAA did not have a

9

“legal right to acquire the documents sought from its member institutions”). Here, Plaintiff

10

has not offered any evidence of a contract between Daniel Hsu and William Hsu or Kozumi

11
Northern District of California

of Civil Procedure 34. The court concluded that SPIL did not because the two companies

2

United States District Court

1

which would give either Defendant legal control over emails within Daniel Hsu’s possession.

12

The evidence of Daniel Hsu’s consultant relationship with Kozumi is insufficient absent a

13

showing that either William Hsu or Kozumi could legally compel Daniel Hsu to produce the

14

documents.

15

Plaintiff’s request for emails from Daniel Hsu’s gmail address

16

([e-mail]) presents the same issue. Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to email

17

from this address because Daniel Hsu used this email address to do business for Kozumi. In

18

support of this contention, Plaintiff has submitted three emails which suggest that Daniel Hsu

19

used his [e-mail] email address for Kozumi related communications. (Dkt.

20

No. 141-5, Exs. G, H & I.) The Court agrees that these emails suggest that Daniel Hsu used

21

both the Kozumi and gmail addresses for Kozumi related business; however, Plaintiff has not

22

cited any authority for the proposition that it can order Defendants to obtain access to Daniel

23

Hsu’s personal gmail account.

24

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of

25

demonstrating that Kozumi has control over the documents sought from these two email

26

accounts. See United States v. Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870

27

F.2d at 1452. “Ordering a party to produce documents that it does not have the legal right to

28

4

1

obtain will oftentimes be futile, precisely because the party has no certain way of getting

2

those documents.” In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 1108 (9th Cir. 1999).

3

Plaintiff’s request that Defendant William Hsu compel Daniel Hsu to appear for a

4

deposition is similarly not supported by any authority and is therefore denied. The Federal

5

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Convention provide for a mechanism by which a

6

party can obtain a non-party’s deposition in another country. See Symantec Corp. v. Acronis,

7

Inc., No. 11-CV-5310, 2013 WL 503612, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2013)(“If the person

8

sought to be deposed is not an officer, director or managing agent, the person’s deposition

9

must be sought by third-party subpoena. And, if the witness is located overseas, “the

Northern District of California

procedures of the Hague Convention or other applicable treaty must be utilized”). It does not

11
United States District Court

10

appear that Plaintiff has attempted to obtain his deposition through these mechanisms; the

12

request is therefore premature.

13

The Court’s ruling does not mean that Defendants should not be sanctioned for their

14

destruction of relevant documents upon a proper showing. Sanctions may similarly be

15

appropriate if Plaintiff is legally required to have Daniel Hsu appear for deposition and fails

16

to do so. See Acronis, 2013 WL 503612 at *1. By the present motion, however, Plaintiff

17

does not seek such sanctions. Defendants could certainly alleviate the need for a sanctions

18

motion by persuading Daniel Hsu to cooperate as Plaintiff requests, but they have either

19

failed to or chose not to do so.
CONCLUSION

20
21
22
23

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to compel discovery related to non-party
Daniel Hsu is DENIED without prejudice to a motion for sanctions.
Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Seal particular exhibits to the Joint Discovery

24

Dispute is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall electronically file those exhibits under seal within

25

three days.

26

This Order disposes of Docket No. 141-1.

27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

1
2

Dated: April 15, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6