Tessera, Inc. v. UTAC (Taiwan) Corporaiton
Filing
109
ORDER on 101 Discovery Letter Brief by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2013)
*E-FILED: February 14, 2013*
1
2
3
4
5
NOT FOR CITATION
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
9
TESSERA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C10-04435 EJD (HRL)
ORDER ON DDJR #2
v.
11
[Dkt. 101]
UTAC (TAIWAN) CORPORATION,
12
13
14
Defendant.
____________________________________/
In this breach of contract case Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. (“Tessera”) sues Defendant UTAC
15
(Taiwan) Corporation (“UTC”) for alleged failure to pay royalties under a license agreement. The
16
parties dispute the basis on which the royalty payments are due. A discovery dispute has arisen over
17
whether and where Tessera may depose UTC employee Ken Hsieh, who lives and works in Taiwan.
18
Tessera asks the Court to order UTC to bring Hsieh to California for a deposition. UTC argues that
19
Tessera may not compel Hsieh’s deposition through a notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
20
Procedure 30.
21
If the party to be deposed in a matter is a corporation, the party seeking discovery may either
22
designate an appropriate individual, or describe the subject matter to be covered in the proposed
23
deposition and allow the corporate deponent to designate its own spokesperson. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
24
30(b)(6). If, however, the party seeking discovery chooses to designate a particular witness, the
25
person designated must be an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation. See id; Use
26
Techno Corp. v. Kenko USA, Inc., No. C-06-02754 EDL, 2007 WL 2403556, * 1 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 20,
27
2007). If the person is not an officer, director, or managing agent of corporation, the party seeking
28
1
discovery must proceed as though the person is an ordinary non-party witness, and obtain a
2
subpoena to secure the attendance of the deponent. Id.
3
To determine whether an individual is a “managing agent” under Rule 30, courts look to see
4
if the individual involved is invested by the corporation with general powers to exercise his
5
discretion and judgment in dealing with corporate matters, whether the individual can be depended
6
upon to carry out the employer's direction to give testimony at the demand of a party engaged in
7
litigation with the employer, and whether the individual can be expected to identify with the
8
interests of the corporation rather than with those of the other parties. Wright & Miller, 8A Fed.
9
Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2103 (3d ed.). Courts place particular emphasis on the third factor,
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
identification with the interests of the employer. Id. The party seeking the deposition bears the
11
burden of providing evidence that the proposed deponent is a managing agent, but courts resolve
12
close questions of a deponent’s status in favor of the examining party. Use Techno Corp. v. Kenko
13
USA, Inc., No. C-06-02754 EDL, 2007 WL 2403556, * 1 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 20, 2007).
14
The Court has reviewed the competing contentions of the parties and is convinced that Hsieh
15
is an employee with relevant information. Hsieh authored or was included in a substantial number
16
of the e-mails already produced in this case. He authored emails explaining how UTC determined
17
whether royalty payments are due, so he has information directly relevant to the primary issue in
18
this litigation. Hsieh also provided Tessera with many of UTC’s royalty statements. Whether Hsieh
19
is a managing agent for purposes of Rule 30 is a closer call. Because Hsieh is a current employee at
20
UTC the second and third factors considered in this determination, whether he can be depended
21
upon to carry out UTC’s direction to give testimony, and whether he can be expected to identify
22
with UTC’s interests rather than with Tessera’s, weigh in favor of a finding that he is a managing
23
agent for purposes of Rule 30. UTC argues that the first factor, whether the individual is invested
24
by the corporation with general powers to exercise his discretion and judgment in dealing with
25
corporate matters, weighs against a finding that Hsieh is a managing agent. UTC claims that Hsieh
26
has no decision-making authority, and that Tessera is already deposing Hsieh’s supervisor, Wendy
27
Pan, and UTC’s President and Chief Executive Officer, Johnson Hsu, both of whom have more
28
authority than Hsieh.
2
1
As close questions of a deponent’s status are resolved in favor of the examining party, and
2
for the sake of efficiently moving the case forward, the Court finds that Hsieh is a managing agent
3
for purposes of Rule 30. Tessera may therefore compel Hsieh’s testimony with respect to non-
4
privileged information through a Rule 30 notice. The Court finds that special circumstances do not,
5
however, warrant displacing the general rule that depositions of a defendant’s corporate witnesses
6
are taken at the defendant’s principal place of business. Wright & Miller, 8A Fed. Prac. & Proc.
7
Civ. § 2112 (3d ed.). UTC’s principal place of business is Taiwan, where Hsieh lives and works.
8
Accordingly, UTC is ordered to produce Hsieh for a deposition, and Hsieh’s deposition shall occur
9
in Taiwan.
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 14, 2013
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
C10-04435 EJD (HRL) Order will be electronically mailed to:
2
Benjamin W. Hattenbach
3
Brian David Ledahl
4
David H. Herrington
dherrington@cgsh.com, dherrington@cgsh.com
5
Jennifer Renee Bunn
jbunn@irell.com
6
Joseph Mark Lipner
7
Kathleya Chotiros
8
Laura Elizabeth Evans
levans@irell.com, ybromley@irell.com
9
Lawrence B. Friedman
lfriedman@cgsh.com
bhattenbach@irell.com
bledahl@irell.com
jlipner@irell.com, csilver@irell.com, jgejerman@irell.com
kchotiros@cgsh.com
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Michael F. Heafey
MHeafey@orrick.com, jromero@orrick.com, mawilliams@orrick.com
11
Morgan Chu
12
Nathaniel E. Jedrey
13
Richard William Krebs rkrebs@irell.com, cmedina@irell.com, rbrown@tessera.com,
Slee@irell.com, sveeraraghavan@tessera.com, tegarcia@tessera.com
mchu@irell.com
njedrey@cgsh.com
14
15
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.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?