Hatamian et al v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al

Filing 199

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE PERTAINING TO NUMBER OF DEPOSITIONS. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 5/16/2016. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BABAK HATAMIAN, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 14-cv-00226-YGR (JSC) v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et al., ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE PERTAINING TO NUMBER OF DEPOSITIONS Re: Dkt. No. 198 Defendants. 12 13 In this securities fraud class action, Plaintiffs contend that defendant Advanced 14 Microdevices, Inc. (“AMD”) made misrepresentations regarding the launch of its “Llano” 15 microprocessor, and in particular, misstatements regarding the Llano manufacturing plant’s chip 16 yield. Now pending before the Court is the parties’ joint letter brief regarding a discovery dispute. 17 (Dkt. No. 198.) Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an order increasing the presumptive limitation of ten 18 fact depositions per party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A) to 28 fact depositions 19 per party. Defendant proposes a more modest increase of 15 total fact depositions per side. 20 Generally, courts do not grant leave for a party to take additional depositions until the 21 moving party has exhausted the 10-deposition limit imposed by Rule 30(a)(2). See Authentec, Inc. 22 v. Atrua Techs., Inc., No. C 08-1423 PJH, 2008 WL 5120767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2008) 23 (denying motion for leave to take additional depositions before plaintiff had taken a single 24 deposition). Courts have departed from this “exhaustion rule” where there are multiple plaintiffs 25 and defendants and the complexity of the case clearly warrants more than ten depositions. See, 26 e.g., Del Campo v. Am. Corrective Counseling Servs., Inc., No. 01-cv-21151 JW (PVT), 2007 WL 27 3306496, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2007) (in complex case with five plaintiffs and eleven 28 defendants, finding it prejudicial to require plaintiffs to choose to take ten depositions before they 1 knew whether they would be granted more). Here, Plaintiffs have taken only three of their ten 2 noticed fact depositions to date, and Defendant has already agreed to increase the number of 3 depositions to 15. While this case is complex, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing a 4 particularized need for more than 15 depositions at this time. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 5 without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request for 28 fact depositions. Each party may take up to 15 fact 6 depositions. Plaintiffs may renew their request for additional depositions after taking the first 15 7 and establishing a particularized need for more depositions in light of those witnesses’ testimony. 8 This Order disposes of Docket Number 198. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: May 16, 2016 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 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?