Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc. et al

Filing 354

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 319 Nonparty Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs; denying as moot 349 and 352 Motions to Appear by Telephone. 11/16/2010 motion hearing is vacated. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2010)

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc. et al

Doc. 354

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., v. Plaintiff, No. C07-06222 RMW (HRL) ORDER DENYING NONPARTY CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS; DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE [Re: Docket Nos. 319, 349, 352] *E-FILED 11-09-2010*

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

BEL FUSE INC., E & E MAGNETIC PRODUCTS LIMITED, ELEC & ELTEK (USA) CORPORATION, WURTH ELECTRONICS MIDCOM, INC., WURTH ELEKTRONIK GMBH & CO. KG, and XFMRS, INC., Defendants. /

Plaintiff Halo Electronics, Inc. (Halo) previously moved for an order compelling nonparty Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco) to comply with Halo's subpoena seeking a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition. Although the subpoena at issue also sought the production of documents, the only question presented was whether Cisco should be compelled to appear once--and only once--for a deposition by all parties. On this issue, Cisco and Halo appeared to agree that Cisco should be deposed only once by everyone. Defendants Bel Fuse, Inc. (Bel Fuse) and XFMRS, Inc. (XFMRS), however, proved to be the stumbling blocks because they refused to agree to a one-deposition limit or to any dates when they might be ready to depose Cisco, and refused to commit to a date when they would be prepared. This court ruled that Cisco would be deposed only once by all parties, permitted each side to depose Cisco for up to six hours, and

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ordered that the deposition take place during the week of October 18, 2010. (Docket No. 316, September 3, 2010 Order). By all accounts, Cisco's deposition proceeded as ordered. Now before this court is Cisco's motion for an order directing Halo to pay approximately $11,639.00 in fees and costs incurred in opposing the prior motion to compel. The matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). The November 16, 2010 hearing is vacated, and all requests for telephonic appearance are denied as moot. Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, this court denies the motion. In Cisco's view, Halo's prior motion to compel was wrongheaded and should have been directed to Bel Fuse and XFMRS instead. Halo says that, as a practical matter, it could not have moved to compel defendants' compliance with the underlying subpoena, which was directed only to Cisco. Cisco and Halo seem to agree that defendants are to blame for the fallout over the scheduling of Cisco's deposition. Bel Fuse and XFMRS, however, are largely bystanders to this dispute because they are neither the moving parties nor the motion targets--albeit, at the very end of its reply brief, Cisco says that it will not object if Bel Fuse and XFMRS are made to pay a portion of the requested fees and costs. Halo's prior motion to compel would have been better directed at defendants. The court has wide discretion in setting the terms--including the time, place, and conditions--for any discovery. To the extent Halo felt that defendants were hampering its ability to proceed with Cisco's deposition, plaintiff certainly could have sought an order compelling defendants to agree to a single deposition of Cisco--which essentially is the relief provided by this court's September 3, 2010 ruling. At the same time, however, this court is unconvinced that the time and effort expended by Cisco in reporting its position on the issues would have been significantly different even if Halo had directed its underlying motion at Bel Fuse and XFMRS. Accordingly, Cisco's motion for its fees and costs is denied. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 9, 2010 HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5:07-cv-06222-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to: A. Neal Seth [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

Andrew P. Nemiroff

Christopher Todd Norris David Moorman

[e-mail] [e-mail]

David James Miclean Emily Rita Frank Harold C. Moore

[e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer McGuone Lantz John Cameron Adkisson Joshua L. Raskin Juanita R. Brooks

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

[e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

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

Kent Andrew Lambert [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] Limin Zheng [e-mail], [e-mail]

Martin C. Fliesler [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] Martin G. Raskin Michael A. Swift Michael J Kane Michael J. Pape [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael Joseph Powell Rex Hwang

[e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

Samuel F Miller

Sarah Katherine Casey Terry John Mollica William R. Woodford

[e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

3