Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. Research in Motion Limited et al

Filing 268

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 161 plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants' 30(b)(6) Deposition Testimony. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2010)

Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. Research in Motion Limited et al

Doc. 268

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION, Defendants. / No. C08-04990 JW (HRL) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION TESTIMONY [Re: Docket No. 161] *E-FILED 08-03-2010*

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

In this patent case, plaintiff Mformation Technologies, Inc. (Mformation) moves for an order compelling defendants Research in Motion Limited and Research in Motion Corporation (collectively, RIM) to produce a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) designee for continued testimony on Topics 14(a), (c) and (d). The three subtopics in question concern the structure, operation, and functionality of BlackBerry relating to the BlackBerry Enterprise Server, BlackBerry Professional Software and use of an ITAdminQueue--testimony which Mformation says is critical to its infringement claims. On Friday, May 7, 2010, RIM produced Carl Cherry to testify as to these matters (among others). After deposing Cherry for nearly one day, Mformation claims that, for various reasons, it needs several more hours to complete its examination re the subtopics in question. Plaintiff points out that the parties have agreed that each side may take up to 42 hours of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) testimony. (To be clear,

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mformation is not, by this motion, seeking to increase its 42-hour allotment). RIM opposes the motion. Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well as the arguments of counsel, this court grants the motion. "Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is limited to 1 day of 7 hours." FED. R. CIV. P. 30(d)(1). Nevertheless, "[t]he court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination." Id. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), the court must limit the extent or frequency of discovery if it finds that (a) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from a source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive, (b) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information through discovery; or (c) the burden or expense of the discovery sought outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake, and the importance of the discovery in resolving those issues. FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii). Here, neither side's characterization of the deposition proceedings is particularly persuasive. It does not seem that plaintiff's counsel was as inefficient as RIM contends. Nor was Cherry was as obstreperous as Mformation claims. Putting aside whether RIM's offer to have the examination continue into Friday evening or the next day was reasonable, the record presented indicates that it was not feasible since the court reporter was not available at those times. The subtopics at issue appear to be important to key issues in dispute. Moreover, Mformation is asking for only a few more hours--which RIM apparently was willing to give, but just not on a day other than Friday, May 7 or Saturday, May 8, 2010. Having weighed competing legitimate interests and possible prejudice, this court finds no undue burden in having RIM produce a witness for 3 more hours on these topics. Accordingly, Mformation's motion to compel is granted as follows: RIM shall produce a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) designee for further testimony as to Topic 14(a), (c) and (d). The continued deposition shall last no more than 3 hours and shall take place at a date, time and

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

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

location agreed to by the parties. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2010 HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5:08-cv-04990-JW Notice has been electronically mailed to: Aaron D. Charfoos Amardeep Lal Thakur Bradford John Black Carl John Blickle Eugene Goryunov Gina Ann Bibby Justin E. Gray [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail]

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

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Linda S. DeBruin [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] Marc Howard Cohen [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] Maria A. Maras [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

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

Michael Anthony Parks Shawn Edward McDonald

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.

4