Resolute Forest Products, Inc. et al v. Greenpeace International et al

Filing 417

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore re 416 Discovery Letter No. 12. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2021)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, 9 v. 10 11 Case No. 17-cv-02824-JST (KAW) ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER NO. 12 Re: Dkt. No. 416 GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 The instant case concerns Plaintiffs’ defamation claims based on Defendants’ December 14 2016 and May 2017 statements that Plaintiffs were operating in the Montagnes Blanches forest 15 (“Challenged Statements”). Pending before the Court is the parties’ discovery letter regarding the 16 topics of Plaintiffs’ Notices of Rule 30(b)(6) depositions to Defendants. (Discovery Letter at 1, 17 Dkt. No. 416.) Specifically, Plaintiffs seek deposition testimony as to subject matters that the 18 Court previously prohibited. 19 Plaintiffs argue that the Court’s prior rulings on the scope of discovery apply only to 20 document discovery, not testimonial discovery. (Discovery Letter at 3.) Plaintiffs suggest that 21 “[a] subject matter that is not appropriate to explore through document discovery, which can be 22 exceedingly time consuming and expensive, may nonetheless be appropriate to explore through 23 depositions, which are often a less burdensome discovery tool . . . .” (Id. at 3-4.) The Court, 24 however, did not prohibit discovery on the grounds of burden. The Court prohibited much of the 25 discovery because it was simply not relevant. If discovery is not relevant, then the burden of a 26 deponent preparing such topics is itself undue. Plaintiff cites no authority suggesting that a party 27 is entitled to testimonial discovery regarding irrelevant topics, but instead goes to the 28 uncontroverted principle that depositions impose less burden. Plaintiffs also contend that it has not asked any deposition questions yet, and that the Court 1 2 can only “speculate as to the relevance and burden of a hypothetical line of questioning based 3 solely on the Topics set forth in Plaintiffs’ notices.” (Discovery Letter at 3.) While it is true that 4 the Court cannot predict what Plaintiff will ultimately ask, a review of the deposition topics at 5 issue -- along with the remarkably contentious litigation history of this case, which has involved 6 no fewer than eleven discovery letters1 and a motion to quash, many of which involve the same 7 deposition topics now at issue -- the Court finds it prudent to rule on Defendants’ objections in the 8 hope of staving off further disputes. A. 9 Deposition Topic No. 1 Topic No. 1 seeks testimony as to Defendants’ knowledge concerning Plaintiffs, including 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Plaintiffs’ operations in the Boreal Forest and the Montagnes Blanches. To the extent this Topic 12 concerns Plaintiffs’ operations about the Boreal Forest only, with no relation to the Montagnes 13 Blanches, this Topic appears overbroad. At issue in this case is whether Plaintiffs operated in the 14 Montagnes Blanches and how Defendants defined Montagnes Blanches, not Plaintiffs’ operations 15 in the Boreal Forest as a whole. 16 B. Deposition Topic No. 2 17 Topic No. 2 seeks testimony as to Defendants’ alleged campaign against Plaintiffs. The 18 Court has previously denied such discovery to the extent it was not about the Montagnes 19 Blanches. (See Dkt. Nos. 269 at 6; 339 at 2.) The presiding judge has also denied Plaintiffs’ 20 appeal of the undersigned’s order denying such discovery, including Plaintiffs’ request for 21 discovery as to “Defendants’ ill-will towards [Plaintiffs].” (Dkt. No. 287 at 3.) 22 C. Deposition Topic No. 3 23 Topic No. 3 concerns Defendants’ communications concerning Plaintiff. This topic 24 appears overbroad to the extent that it is not tethered to the Montagnes Blanches, as it would 25 otherwise cover every communication Defendants have ever had about Plaintiffs. 26 27 28 This does not include discovery letters terminated for failure to comply with the Court’s standing order. (See Dkt. Nos. 276, 291, 292, 316, 377.) 2 1 1 D. Deposition Topic No. 4 2 Topic No. 4 concerns Defendants’ January 2016 statement that the financial impact of its 3 campaign on Plaintiffs was “over $100 million.” As Defendants point out, this statement was 4 made prior to the Challenged Statements, which were made in December 2016 and May 2017. 5 (Discovery Letter at 2.) Plaintiffs suggest this testimony goes to their damages, but it is unclear 6 how a statement made by Defendants nearly a year prior to the Challenged Statements 7 demonstrates the harm suffered by Plaintiffs. (See id. at 5.) 8 E. Deposition Topic No. 5 9 Topic No. 5 concerns every allegation in the amended complaint that Defendants deny. As Defendants point out, many of the allegations in the amended complaint concern claims that the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 presiding judge dismissed. (Discovery Letter at 2.) This Topic should be narrowed to the 12 allegations that are still at issue in this case. 13 F. Deposition Topic No. 7 14 Topic No. 7 concerns Defendants’ involvement in the research, development, and 15 distribution of publications concerning Plaintiffs’ operations and impacts in the Montagnes 16 Blanches, including reports from 2012 and 2013. Defendants contend that as to the earlier reports, 17 the Topic should be limited to Defendants’ knowledge about the Montagnes Blanches. (Discovery 18 Letter at 1.) This Topic does not appear to go beyond Defendants’ knowledge about the 19 Montagnes Blanches, and thus does not appear overbroad. 20 G. Deposition Topic No. 10 21 Topic No. 10 concerns Defendants’ claim that Plaintiff violated the CBFA by harvesting in 22 the Montagnes Blanches. Defendants contend the Court has previously denied Plaintiffs’ requests 23 for discovery into CBFA statements unless they expressly relate to the Montagnes Blanches, but 24 as Plaintiffs point out, this Topic is by its terms specific to the Montagnes Blanches. (Discovery 25 Letter at 2, 4.) Thus, it does not appear overbroad. 26 H. 27 Topic No. 11 concerns Defendants’ communications with Best Buy in 2014, admonishing 28 Deposition Topic No. 11 Best Buy for sourcing from Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suggest that this testimony goes to its damages 3 1 because after Defendants attacked Best Buy, Plaintiffs’ customers may have reacted to the 2 Challenged Statements by adjusting their relationship to cause Plaintiffs damages while former 3 customers stayed away. This theory is speculative at best. It is entirely unclear how the past 4 behavior of a third-party based on non-actionable statements (which do not appear to concern the 5 Montagnes Blanches) made more than three years prior could demonstrate the actual damages to 6 Plaintiffs in this case. 7 I. Deposition Topic No. 12 8 Topic No. 12 concerns the operational memorandum about which the Court has 9 repeatedly denied discovery. (See Dkt Nos. 269 at 6; 324 at 3.) This ruling was based on the presiding judge’s finding that allegations regarding the operational memorandum “add nothing to 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 the Court’s actual malice analysis.” (Dismissal Order at 16, Dkt. No. 246.) The presiding judge 12 has also upheld the undersigned’s order prohibiting discovery concerning the operational 13 memorandum. (Dkt. No. 287 at 3.) The Court, once again, finds such discovery too broad. 14 J. Deposition Topic Nos. 13 and 14 15 Topic No. 13 concerns the relationship between Defendants and third-parties Greenpeace 16 Fund and Greenpeace Canada, including their coordination as to the campaign against Plaintiffs, 17 how the activities were funded, and the persons who exert operational control of such campaigns. 18 Topic No. 14 concerns Defendants’ solicitation of grants and donations in connection with the 19 alleged campaign against Plaintiffs. Again, the Court has repeatedly denied discovery about 20 fundraising. (See Dkt. Nos. 269 at 6; 382 at 7.) The presiding judge has also upheld the 21 undersigned’s orders prohibiting such discovery, as well as the imposition of monetary sanctions 22 based on Plaintiffs’ bad faith re-litigation of issues already decided against them (including the 23 fundraising issue). (Dkt. No. 388 at 2.) Such discovery is too broad. 24 This order disposes of Dkt. No. 416. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: November 12, 2021 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 4

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?