eOnline Global, Inc et al v. Google Inc.

Filing 64

ORDER REGARDING 61 JULY 10, 2018, JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF RE LOCATION OF DEPOSITIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 7/13/2018. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EONLINE GLOBAL, INC, et al.,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-05822-EJD (SVK)

Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING JULY 10, 2018,
JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF
RE LOCATION OF DEPOSITIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 61

12
13

Before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery letter brief regarding the location of the

14

depositions for two principals of Plaintiff companies, Travis Newman and Mark Ashworth. See

15

ECF 61. Plaintiffs have determined that Mr. Newman will also testify as a Rule 30(b)6 witness.

16

Id. at 2. Mr. Newman and Mr. Ashworth reside in South Carolina and Arizona, respectively. Id.

17

at 1. Defendant Google, Inc. (“Google”) contends that the two deponents should travel to the

18

Northern District of California to sit for their depositions. Id. Plaintiffs argue that appearing for

19

deposition out-of-state presents significant hardships in terms of both cost and time. Id. at 2.

20

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court deems this matter suitable for determination

21

without oral argument and ORDERS as follows:

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The parties acknowledge the general rule that the plaintiff must produce its agents for
deposition in the forum where the plaintiff filed suit. Id. at 2, 4; See also Perdana Capital Inc. v.
Chowdry, 2010 WL 11475933, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2010) (citation omitted). The parties also
acknowledge that in this case, the suit is filed in the Northern District of California pursuant to a
forum selection clause drafted by Google. ECF 61 at 2, 4. The parties do not address whether
Google would have been subject to personal jurisdiction in either South Carolina or Arizona. The
Court is not inclined to deviate from the general rule. Google’s proposed compromise to evenly

1

split the airfare and hotel costs substantially mitigates Plaintiffs’ claim of hardship. ECF 61 at 5.

2

This proposal presents a reasonable compromise in light of the facts presented.

3

The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to produce Mr. Newman and Mr. Ashworth for deposition

4

in the Northern District of California. The parties shall split the two deponents’ economy travel

5

costs evenly. To further mitigate any hardship related to missing days of work, the depositions

6

may take place on the weekend, at Plaintiffs’ discretion.

7
8

SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 13, 2018

9
10
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2