Prime Media Group, LLC v. ACER America Corporation

Filing 65

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 53 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2013)

1
2

*E-FILED: August 2, 2013*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

No. C12-05020 EJD (HRL)

PRIME MEDIA GROUP LLC,

12

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 1

v.
13
ACER AMERICA CORPORATION,
14

[Re: Docket No. 53]

Defendant.
15
16

/
ACER AMERICA CORPORATION,

17

Counterclaimant,
v.

18
19
20
21

PRIME MEDIA GROUP LLC; CIRCLE LINE
MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION
S.R.L.; BREAKOUT S.R.L. and
KEECHWOOD LIMITED,
Counterdefendants.
/

22
23

Plaintiff Prime Media Group LLC (Prime Media) sues for alleged breach of contract,

24

claiming that defendant Acer America Corporation (Acer America) owes money for advertising

25

services. Acer America filed counterclaims against Prime Media and several other entities,

26

alleging that the invoices for payment were falsely inflated.

27
28

When it originally was filed, Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 1 concerned
the depositions of five Italian witnesses that the parties agreed in March 2013 would occur

1

between June 10-21, 2013. Twelve days before the first scheduled deposition, Prime Media

2

said its witnesses would not appear for deposition on the agreed-upon dates. It offered to

3

produce its witnesses in August and September instead, saying that it would ask for an

4

extension of the then-set September 30, 2013 fact discovery cutoff to accommodate the later

5

deposition dates. Acer America insisted that the depositions should proceed on the June dates,

6

as previously agreed, and refused to stipulate to extend the fact discovery cutoff. Acer

7

America’s counsel said that they were unavailable in August and September anyway because of

8

pre-existing scheduling conflicts.

9

Subsequent events rendered moot certain aspects of DDJR No. 1. Judge Davila granted
Prime Media’s request to extend the fact discovery cutoff and other case deadlines.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Additionally, the parties advised that they resolved their dispute as to two of the witnesses in

12

question. So, DDJR No. 1 now concerns only 3 witnesses: (1) Giuditta Soldadino,

13

(2) Geraldina Soldadino, and (3) Marilena Martelli. It is not clear exactly who these individuals

14

are, but they are described by Acer America as “key witnesses.” The matter is deemed suitable

15

for determination without oral argument. CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the parties’

16

respective arguments, this court rules as follows:

17

Prime Media having previously offered to produce its witnesses for deposition in August

18

and September, it shall do so (or, on the earliest alternate date(s) available to Acer America’s

19

counsel or agreed upon by the parties). To the extent Prime Media seeks to postpone the

20

depositions of its witnesses until the conclusion of an Italian criminal proceeding (whenever

21

that might be),1 on the record presented, this court declines to do so. There is scant information

22

by which this court can meaningfully assess whether the Italian criminal proceeding overlaps

23

with the counterclaims asserted by Acer America here. And, what little data is available is

24

based almost entirely on Prime Media’s information and belief. Although it appears that the

25

criminal investigation might involve other Acer affiliates or entities and allegations of

26

overpriced invoices, Acer America says that it had nothing to do with those proceedings and has

27
Prime Media said that it expected the criminal investigation to be completed
in July 2013. There is no indication whether the investigation was, in fact, concluded last
month or whether there has been any decision to file charges.
1

28

2

1

had no involvement in the investigation. Additionally, this court is told that the investigation

2

has been pending for over a year and that Prime Media was well aware of that matter when it

3

first agreed to produce its witnesses for deposition. Even so, this court cannot preclude Prime

4

Media’s witnesses from invoking whatever rights they might have under Italian law with

5

respect to their testimony. This court is in no position to determine whether the assertion of any

6

such rights would be appropriate. But, the ruling here is without prejudice to the deponents to

7

do so, if necessary and appropriate.

8

Prime Media’s other arguments for postponing the subject depositions are unconvincing.

9

SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 2, 2013

11
HOWARD R. LLOYD
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

5:12-cv-05020-EJD Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Charles R Bernardini

3

Christine Melissa Louie

4

Erik Paul Khoobyarian

5

James Elliott Thompson
[e-mail]

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

6
Jeffrey E. Essner

[e-mail], [e-mail]

7
Kevin P. Shea

[e-mail]

8
Richard Henry Tilghman , IV

[e-mail]

9
Robert Scott Shwarts

[e-mail], [e-mail]

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4