Fiteq Inc v. Venture Corporation et al

Filing 54

ORDER DENYING FITEQ'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND GRANTING VENTURE'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting-in-part 45 , denying 46 , and granting 48 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

FITEQ, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

VENTURE CORPORATION, LTD. and
CEBELIAN HOLDING PTE, LTD.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:13-cv-01946-EJD-PSG
ORDER DENYING FITEQ’S
MOTION TO COMPEL AND
GRANTING VENTURE’S MOTION
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Docket Nos. 45, 46, and 48)

Before the court are the parties’ discovery motions. Plaintiff FiTeq, Inc. (“FiTeq”) moves

17
18

to compel Defendant Venture Corporation, Ltd. (“Venture”) to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for

19

a deposition before the preliminary injunction hearing this Friday. 1 Defendants

20

Cebelian Holding, PTE, Ltd. and Venture Corporation, Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”) respond

21
22

with a motion for a protective order relieving Defendants of any obligation to attend the pending
Rule 30(b)(6) depositions.

23
FiTeq’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeks documentation – including

24
25

specifications, source code, and test results – related to Venture’s design work of electronic

26
1

27
28

See Docket No. 46. FiTeq also moves for expedited consideration of its motion.
See Docket No. 45. FiTeq’s motion for expedited consideration is GRANTED-IN-PART. The
court will address the underlying motion without further briefing or oral argument.
1
Case No.: 5:13-cv-01946-EJD-PSG
ORDER DENYING FITEQ’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND GRANTING VENTURE’S
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

payment cards for FiTeq. FiTeq’s motion to compel seeks 30(b)(6) testimony covering “what

2

documents Venture prepared in the course of the contract, what documents it (asserts) it provided

3

to FiTeq, what documents it did not provide, why, and where they are located.” 2 FiTeq claims

4

such 30(b)(6) testimony is necessary, because the declarations Venture lodged in support of its

5
6

opposition to FiTeq’s motion for a preliminary injunction do not include sworn declarations “that
Venture has produced all the documentation it prepared in its course of work for FiTeq.” 3

7
8
9

Although 30(b)(6) testimony offers one way to glean whether Venture has sufficiently turned over
all documents generated pursuant to its contract with FiTeq, FiTeq’s request strikes the court as

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

premature. While a preliminary injunction motion may be pending, and a hearing imminent, FiTeq

11

has not offered evidence yet that Venture has withheld any documents to which FiTeq is entitled

12

to. Maybe such evidence will emerge. But before the court permits such discovery on an

13

expedited basis in a manner requiring witnesses to travel from abroad with little opportunity to

14
prepare, the better course is for counsel first to address the issue with the trial judge as officers of
15
16

the court.
The court expects Venture’s lawyers to be prepared to speak to the extent of its disclosure

17
18

to date before Judge Davila this Friday. To the extent Venture is unable or unwilling to provide

19

candid and complete representations to Judge Davila, FiTeq is certainly welcome to pursue

20

additional motion practice before the undersigned regarding Venture’s shortcomings.

21

FiTeq’s motion to compel is DENIED. Venture’s motion for a protective order is

22
GRANTED.
23
24
25
26
2

Docket No. 46 at 3 (citing Docket No. 47-1).

3

Id. (emphasis omitted).

27
28

2
Case No.: 5:13-cv-01946-EJD-PSG
ORDER DENYING FITEQ’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND GRANTING VENTURE’S
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER