Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 29

Declaration of Brian S. Edwards In Support of 28 Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Vuitton, S.A. filed by Akanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc., Steven Chen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Edwards Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B to Edwards Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C to Edwards Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D to Edwards Declaration)(Lowe, James) (Filed on 3/11/2008) Modified on 3/12/2008,(counsel failed to link to motion.) (cv, COURT STAFF).

Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc. et al

Doc. 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

GAUNTLETT & ASSOCIATES James A. Lowe (SBN 214383) Brian S. Edwards (SBN 166258) 18400 Von Karman, Suite 300 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Akanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc. and Steven Chen UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A., Plaintiff, vs. AKANOC SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: C 07-3952 JW Hon. Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd DECLARATION OF BRIAN S. EDWARDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A. Date: Time: Dept.: April 22, 2008 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 2, 5th Floor

10562-002-3/11/2008-160504.1

DECLARATION OF BRIAN S. EDWARDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A. ­ C 07-3952 JW

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I, BRIAN S. EDWARDS, declare: 1. I am an associate with Gauntlett & Associates and one of the attorneys for the

Defendants in this lawsuit. The facts set forth in this Declaration are of my own personal knowledge and I could competently testify to them if called as a witness. 2. This Declaration is submitted in support of Managed Solutions Group, Inc.'s

("MSG") Motion to Compel the Deposition of Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. ("LV"). MSG seeks an order compelling LV to produce its FRCP Rule 30(b)(6) designees for deposition in California. 3. On or about November 28, 2007, LV served its Rule 26 Initial Disclosures on MSG.

A true copy is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." At Section (A), LV disclosed two individuals as persons likely to have discoverable information: (1) Nikolay Livadkin, Louis Vuitton's AntiCounterfeiting Manager in its Intellectual Property Dept, and (2) Robert Holmes of IP Cybercrime.com in Plano, Texas. 4. On January 28, 2008 MSG complied with Local Rule 30-1 by mailing a detailed

Request to Confer on Deposition Scheduling to counsel for LV. A true copy is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 5. In a letter dated February 4, 2008 LV's counsel, Andy Coombs, objected to producing

LV's designees in California because LV is a French corporation and its designee is located in France. 6. On February 20, 2008 MSG served its FRCP Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition upon

LV and noticed the deposition to take place on March 3, 2008. A true copy is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." 7. On February 26, 2008, LV served objections to MSG's deposition notice. A true

copy is attached hereto as Exhibit "D." Again, LV objected to producing its designees in California and instead opted for Louis Vuitton's principal place of business in France: The purported notice of deposition seeks to compel the deposition of Plaintiff's persons most knowledgeable in Irvine, California. Plaintiff is based in Paris, France as alleged in the Complaint and restated in Defendants' response to Request to meet and confer as required by Local Rule. Plaintiff cannot be compelled to produce persons most knowledgeable in California. See e.g. Thomas v. International
10562-002-3/11/2008-160504.1

1

DECLARATION OF BRIAN S. EDWARDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A. ­ C 07-3952 JW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8.

Business Machines, 48 F.3d 478, 483 (10th Cir. 1995). . ." On February 27, 2008, the parties met and conferred telephonically on various issues

including whether LV was required to produce its Rule 30(b)(6) designee in California. During this meet and confer Mr. Coombs informed myself and co-counsel James A. Lowe that LV would be designating Nikolay Livadkin, an attorney at its Paris branch, as the designee for all of the matters described in MSG's Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition. Apparently relying upon the case of Thomas v. International Business Machines, 48 F.3d 478, 483 (10th Cir.1995), Mr. Coombs informed us that LV was not required to produce its designee in California. As an alternative, Mr. Coombs proposed that the parties fly to New York to depose Mr. Livadkin at their own expense. Mr. Lowe informed Mr. Coombs that MSG would agree to take the deposition of LV's designee anywhere in California, including the Northern District, and even offered to take the deposition at LV's counsel's office in Los Angeles. 9. As a follow up to our meet and confer discussions the day before, and in the hope of

convincing Mr. Coombs to produce LV's designee in California, on February 28, 2008 I sent a detailed letter to Mr. Coombs citing applicable case authority including a Ninth Circuit opinion, Cadent Ltd. v. 3M Unitek Corporation 232 F.R.D. 625 (C.D.Cal.2005), which appears to be on point in requiring that LV produce its designee in California. The letter also explained that the case of

Thomas v. International Business Machines, 48 F.3d 478, 483 (10th Cir.1995) LV cited in its objection was inapposite and did not support LV's position. 10. On March 3, 2008, Mr. Coombs sent a letter responding to my February 28 letter. By

way of a "compromise" and in a "final effort" to resolve the dispute, and without waiving his position that MSG be required to fly to France or New York, Mr. Coombs agreed to make LV's corporate designee available at my office "subject to Defendants' agreement to pay out-of-pocket travel expenses associated with bringing the designee from Paris, France." Mr. Coombs' letter did not cite any legal authority for the proposition that MSG should be required to fly to France or New York or, alternatively, pay all of LV's expenses in bringing its designee to California. 11. On March 4, 2008, I responded to Mr. Coombs' March 3 letter via e-mail. My letter 2
DECLARATION OF BRIAN S. EDWARDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A. ­ C 07-3952 JW

10562-002-3/11/2008-160504.1