Novadaq Technologies v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. K.G. et al

Filing 68

ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting-in-part and denying-in-part 58 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

KARL STORZ GMBH & CO. KG, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:14-cv-04853-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL
(Re: Docket No. 58)

Plaintiff Novadaq Technologies Inc. presents five issues in its motion to compel.1

17

First, Novadaq moves to compel Defendants to produce all relevant documents in response

18
to specific document requests from Novadaq, not just “representative” documents Defendants have
19
20
21

agreed to produce. The court GRANTS Novadaq’s request. All documents must be produced no
later than April 29, 2015.
Second, Novadaq moves to compel Defendants to produce documents with metadata that

22
23

identifies the custodian and file location of the document. In the absence of an enforceable

24

agreement, the undersigned is not yet persuaded that file location information is necessary as part

25

of the metadata collection required in this case. On that basis, the request is DENIED. If Novadaq

26
can show the court why the location information is necessary, and provide a specific argument as
27
1

28

See Docket No. 58.
1

Case No. 5:14-cv-04853-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL

1
2

to what that file location information will do materially to advance this case, the undersigned will
consider a further motion.
Third, Novadaq moves to compel Defendants to identify the custodians from which they

3
4
5
6

collected documents. The court GRANTS this request. For any document produced on or before
April 23, 2015, both parties shall produce custodial information by April 29, 2015. For any
documents produced in the future, both parties shall produce custodial information together with

7
8

the production.
Fourth, Novadaq moves to compel as many as 13 fact witness depositions and two 30(b)(6)

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

depositions. Because Novadaq represents that it might reduce the number of depositions it seeks to

11

take based on a review of documentation, this request is DENIED as premature. If necessary,

12

Novadaq may renew this request along with a motion to shorten time.

13

Fifth, Novadaq moves to compel Defendants to produce German-based witnesses for

14
deposition in either the United States or London. In resolving this dispute, the court may consider:
15
(1) The parties’ convenience and relative hardships to attend the designated location; (2)
Cost of transportation and lost work to the defendant; (3) Expense and inconvenience to
move voluminous documents; (4) Whether the parties’ counsel are located in the forum
district; (5) Whether the defendant is a large corporation whose employees often travel; (6)
Whether significant discovery disputes may arise and judicial economy favors resolution by
the forum court or other similar concerns; and (7) Whether the parties’ claims and parties’
relationship are such that appropriate adjustment of the equities favors a deposition site in
the forum district.2

16
17
18
19
20

Novadaq filed this suit in the United States. Defendant Karl Storz Endoscopy-America is a

21
22

company organized under the laws of the State of California, has its principal place of business in

23

California and conducts business transactions within this District.3 Defendants do not contest

24
25
26
27

2

Willis v. Mullins, Case No. 04-cv-06542-LJO, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35627, at *17-18 (E.D. Cal.
Feb. 8, 2006).

3

28

See Docket No. 1 at 2-3.
2

Case No. 5:14-cv-04853-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL

1

venue in this district.4 In addition, this case would require counsel to fly around the world to take

2

depositions and both parties have presences in the forum district. Considering these key factors,

3

the court finds that the most equitable solution is to order that all depositions of foreign-based party

4

witnesses take place in the Northern District of California.5

5
6

SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 23, 2015

7
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4

26

See Docket No. 22 at 1.

5

27
28

To the extent that parties reach an agreement setting different parameters for deposing foreignbased party witnesses, the parties are welcome to stipulate to that effect. But in the absence of a
stipulation, this is the rule that will apply.
3
Case No. 5:14-cv-04853-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL