Tessera, Inc. v. Sony Corporation

Filing 113

DISCOVERY ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd allocating 107 deposition time. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2012)

1
*E-FILED: November 6, 2012

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

TESSERA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12

No. C11-04399 EJD (HRL)
DISCOVERY ORDER

v.
13

[Dkt. 107]
SONY CORP.,

14
15
16

Defendant.
____________________________________/
In this breach of contract case Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. (“Tessera”) sues Defendant Sony

17

Corporation (“Sony”) for alleged failure to pay royalties under a Master License Agreement

18

(“Agreement”) between the parties. The dispute arose when Tessera arranged for Connor Group

19

NV, LLC to audit records of Sony that bear on Sony’s royalty obligations under the Agreement.

20

The parties dispute the audit process and its results. Tessera claims that the audit reveals

21

underpayment of royalties under the Agreement and that Sony withheld information from Connor

22

Group. Sony counterclaims that Tessera breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair

23

dealing by causing to be prepared an audit report that is not independent and then using the audit

24

report as a basis to demand payment for more than it’s entitled to under the Agreement.

25

The parties bring to the Court a dispute over whether and for how long Tessera may depose

26

or cross examine the Connor Group, Nigel Shepherd, and Edgar Ooms. Shepherd is the managing

27

director of Connor Group and he authored the audit report that spawned this litigation. Ooms is a

28

manager at Connor Group. Sony properly noticed and served subpoenas for these depositions well

1

before the October 19, 2012 close of discovery. When the schedules of these third parties prevented

2

Sony from taking the depositions before the close of fact discovery, the parties filed a stipulation

3

with the Court, requesting an extension on expert discovery deadlines and seeking the Court’s

4

permission to conduct these three depositions beyond the close of fact discovery. The Court granted

5

the requested extensions.

6

After getting the extensions, and after the parties and third parties negotiated a schedule for

7

the depositions (which involved combining the 30(b)(6) deposition of Connor Group and the

8

individual deposition of Shepherd into seven total hours of deposition), Tessera issued its own

9

notices of depositions for the days and times arranged through Sony’s notices. The materials

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

submitted to the Court show that sharing the deposition time was not originally contemplated by the

11

parties and that the Court’s extension of the time to depose Connor Group and these individuals was

12

based on Sony’s timely notices of the depositions. It appears as though Tessera, as a result of an

13

oversight or as a strategy, is attempting to usurp the limited time allotted to Sony for depositions.

14

In spite of this history, however, Tessera is entitled to cross-examine the deponents. In light

15

of the disagreement between the parties over how to allocate the deposition time, the Court has

16

determined that at least 45 minutes of the combined deposition of Connor Group and Shepherd

17

should be allotted to Tessera for cross-examination. And, at least 45 minutes of the deposition of

18

Ooms shall be allotted to Tessera for cross-examination.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 6, 2012

21
22

HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

C11-04399 EJD (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Melissa McCormick
Benjamin Hattenbach
Brian Ledahl
Morgan Chu
Nathan Lowenstein
Richard Krebs
Eileen Ridley
Aaron Moore
Matthew Lowrie
Ruben Rodrigues

3
4
5
6

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

7
8

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.

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3