Edwards Lifesciences Corporation et al v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. et al

Filing 361

ORDER by Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., GRANTING Docket No. #314 Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. (hsglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES
CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.
10
11

Case No. 19-cv-06593-HSG
ORDER RE MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Re: Dkt. No. 314

MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD., et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Pending before the Court is Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.’s and Meril, Inc.’s (collectively,

14

“Meril”) motion for relief from the December 9, 2021 Order of Magistrate Judge Kandis A.

15

Westmore. See Dkt. Nos. 271, 308, 314. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Edwards

16

Lifesciences LLC (collectively, “Edwards”) has filed an opposition. See Dkt. No. 356. For the

17

reasons provided below, the Court GRANTS Meril’s motion.

18

At issue is whether Meril may depose Mr. Larry Wood, Edwards’ Corporate Vice

19

President, and Ms. Pooja Sharma, Edwards’ Vice President of Strategy and Program

20

Management. On July 6, 2021, Meril served a 30(b)(6) deposition notice, noticing a deposition of

21

Edwards through persons designated to testify on Edwards’ behalf regarding certain topics. See

22

Dkt. No. 271-1. That deposition was set to commence on July 15, 2021, or a date “otherwise

23

agreed by counsel.” Id. Edwards designated Mr. Wood and Ms. Sharma to testify on its behalf

24

but objected to the July 15 date and notified Meril that the witnesses would instead be made

25

available on August 12 and 13. Dkt. No. 271 at 2-4. Meril then objected to the August 12 and 13

26

dates, and the parties ultimately could not agree on a deposition date for Mr. Wood and Ms.

27

Sharma. Dkt. No. 192. The parties accordingly filed a Joint Discovery Dispute Letter on August

28

18, 2021, which Judge Westmore ultimately resolved on December 9, 2021. Dkt. No 308.

Judge Westmore’s Order concluded that Meril violated Civil Local Rule 30-1, which

1
2

requires parties to meet and confer regarding scheduling before noticing a deposition, and further

3

found that Meril had engaged in “gamesmanship” by waiting until August 10, 2021 to notify

4

Edwards that it could not proceed with the depositions of Mr. Wood and Ms. Sharma on the

5

morning of August 12, 2021. Id. In the pending motion, Meril contends that Judge Westmore’s

6

December 9 Order rests upon multiple factual misunderstandings and requests the opportunity to

7

take depositions of Edwards’ witnesses so that it has a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine

8

them at trial. See Dkt. No. 314.
To begin with, the undersigned agrees with Judge Westmore that many of the

9

“unprecedented number of discovery disputes” in this case are of the kind that professional

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

lawyers routinely should, and do, resolve without expending judicial resources. See Dkt. No. 308.

12

While it should go without saying, the Court strongly encourages both parties to recommit to

13

professionalism and good-faith cooperation for the remainder of this case.
Turning to the merits, having reviewed newly-submitted email correspondence between

14
15

counsel for Meril and counsel for Edwards that was not before Judge Westmore, the Court

16

concludes that Meril is correct.1 See Dkt. No. 357-2; 357-3. That correspondence shows that as

17

early as August 2, 2021, Meril made clear to Edwards that the August 12 and 13 deposition dates

18

would not leave sufficient time for Meril to review Edwards’ ongoing and incomplete document

19

productions prior to those depositions, and thus sought alternative dates. See Dkt. No. 357-2.

20

Based on that evidence, the Court finds that: (1) Meril did not wait until the last minute to object

21

to the August 12 and 13 deposition dates; and (2) Edwards’ refusal to provide alternative dates

22

that would allow Meril time to adequately review the completed document production was

23

unreasonable. Moreover, while Edwards offered Meril another opportunity to take the Wood and

24

Sharma depositions in early December, the Court finds that it was also unreasonable for Edwards

25

to condition these depositions of key witnesses on Meril withdrawing an entirely unrelated and

26
27
28

1

The email correspondence was not before Judge Westmore because her Standing Order states
that joint discovery letters may not be accompanied by exhibits or affidavits other than exact
copies of interrogatories, requests for production of documents and/or responses, privilege logs,
and relevant deposition testimony. See Judge Westmore S.O. 14(b).
2

1
2

potentially important document request. See Dkt. Nos. 356 at 1; 271 at 3.
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Meril’s motion. Edwards shall make Mr. Wood

3

and Ms. Sharma available for deposition on or before January 21, 2022. If Edwards fails to do so,

4

those witnesses will be precluded from offering testimony at trial, and testimony from other

5

witnesses that purports to be based on information from them also will be excluded.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2022
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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