Yahoo!, Inc. v. MyMail, Ltd.

Filing 42

ORDER ON 38 DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF REGARDING RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICES TO YAHOO!, INC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 5/18/2017. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 YAHOO!, INC., Plaintiff, 8 9 10 v. MYMAIL, LTD., United States District Court Northern District of California ORDER ON DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF REGARDING RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICES TO YAHOO!, INC. Re: Dkt. No. 38 Defendant. 11 12 Case No. 16-cv-07044-EJD (SVK) The parties have submitted a joint discovery letter brief on a dispute regarding two Rule 13 30(b)(6) deposition notices served on plaintiff Yahoo!, Inc. by defendant MyMail, Ltd. ECF 38. 14 MyMail seeks an order compelling Yahoo to produce one or more corporate representatives to 15 appear in response to the deposition notices. Id. at 1. MyMail has agreed to limit its Rule 16 30(b)(6) deposition of Yahoo to one day and six topics, which it identifies in footnote 1 of the 17 parties’ joint discovery letter brief. Id. at 2 n.1. Yahoo is opposed to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition 18 on these topics, which Yahoo characterizes as relating to contentions, legal conclusions, and issues 19 for expert discovery. Id. at 3-5. Yahoo argues that MyMail should pursue the disputed topics by 20 way of “focused contention interrogatories” rather than a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Id. 21 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–1(b), the Court concludes that the issues presented in the 22 parties’ joint discovery letter brief are appropriate for determination without oral argument. Having 23 considered the briefing, and as discussed below, the Court DENIES MyMail’s request for an order 24 compelling Yahoo to produce witnesses on the disputed topics for deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) at 25 this time, on the condition that Yahoo respond to contention interrogatories on those topics within 26 fifteen (15) calendar days of service. This order is without prejudice to MyMail seeking depositions 27 on the disputed topics if warranted after MyMail’s receipt and review of Yahoo’s interrogatory 28 responses. 1 2 I. BACKGROUND In this lawsuit (the “California action”), Yahoo alleges that MyMail breached two online agreements governing use of certain Yahoo software. ECF 1. Yahoo filed the California action in 4 December 2016, after being sued by MyMail for patent infringement in the Eastern District of 5 Texas in September 2016 (the “Texas action”). See ECF 1-3, 1-4. In the Texas action, MyMail 6 alleges that the Yahoo toolbar infringes MyMail’s patents. See id. In the California action, 7 Yahoo’s allegations that MyMail violated the terms of Yahoo’s Terms of Service (“TOS”) and 8 Toolbar Software License agreements are based upon allegations MyMail made in the Texas 9 action. See, e.g., ECF 1 at ¶¶ 29-36. For example, Yahoo alleges that MyMail’s complaint and 10 first amended complaint in the Texas action “contain images allegedly depicting aspects of the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 functionality of the Yahoo Toolbar that, on information and belief, were not produced by the 12 Yahoo Toolbar, or any other software provided by Yahoo, and do not convey information that 13 would ordinarily be made visible or apparent to users of the Yahoo Toolbar.” Id. at ¶ 35. Yahoo 14 then goes on to allege that MyMail has violated the TOS and Toolbar Software License 15 Agreements by, among other things, “reverse engineering one or more versions of the Yahoo 16 Toolbar,” “using the Yahoo Toolbar in a manner inconsistent with the TOS and the Toolbar 17 Software,” “seeking to derive income from its use of Yahoo! Software,” “copying Yahoo! 18 Software and data obtained through Yahoo! Software and by transferring or transmitting data 19 obtained through Yahoo! Software in the MyMail Complaint and [First Amended Complaint],” 20 and “obtaining and using one or more versions of the Yahoo Toolbar in the manner described 21 above for the purpose of filing the Texas Action, and by filing the Texas Action.” Id. at ¶¶ 37-41. 22 In the California action, MyMail served Yahoo with two notices of deposition pursuant to 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), seeking a deposition of one or more Yahoo corporate 24 representatives on a number of topics. In the parties’ joint discovery letter brief, MyMail 25 summarizes the disputed topics as follows: 26 27 28 (1) “the facts supposedly showing that ‘MyMail or an individual under MyMail's direction or control has used Yahoo's email services, and has downloaded, installed, and used at least one version of the Yahoo Toolbar in connection with Yahoo's email services,’ and that ‘MyMail agreed to’ the TOS and the Toolbar Software License”; 2 1 (2) “the facts showing that MyMail sought ‘to derive income from its use of Yahoo! Software’”; 2 (3) “the facts showing that MyMail ‘unfairly prevented Yahoo from receiving the benefits it was entitled to receive under the Toolbar Software License and the TOS’”; 3 4 (4) “the facts showing that MyMail engaged in reverse engineering one or more versions of the Yahoo Toolbar, and by using the Yahoo Toolbar in a manner inconsistent with the TOS and the Toolbar Software License”; 5 6 (5) “MyMail has materially breached the TOS by copying Yahoo! Software and data obtained through Yahoo! Software and by transferring or transmitting data obtained through Yahoo! Software”; and 7 8 9 (6) “the nature and amount of any damages Yahoo! alleges it suffered as a result of any alleged breaches of the TOS and Toolbar Software License.” 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 ECF 38 at 2 n.1.1 12 II. DISCUSSION The scope of permissible discovery includes “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to 13 14 any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance 15 of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to 16 relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 17 issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” 18 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). A party’s attempt to conduct discovery into “an opinion or contention 19 that relates to fact or the application of law to fact” is not necessarily improper. See Fed. R. Civ. 20 Proc. 33(a)(2) (authorizing contention interrogatories). A court, for good cause, may issue a 21 protective order prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party seeking 22 discovery. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c)(1)(C). Here, the parties, through meet and confer efforts, have apparently narrowed their dispute 23 24 to the issue of whether MyMail should obtain discovery from Yahoo on the six topics discussed 25 26 27 28 1 The parties’ joint discovery letter brief purported to attach the two Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices served by MyMail and Yahoo’s responses and objections to those notices (see ECF 38), but those documents were not attached to the brief filed with the Court. The parties, however, have focused their brief on the topics as summarized in footnote 1 of the brief, and the Court’s order likewise focuses on those topics. 3 1 above by way of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition or by contention interrogatories. “Whether 2 ‘contention’ 30(b)(6) topics are appropriate is an inquiry that depends on the facts and 3 circumstances of each case.” Gen-Probe Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., No. 09cv2319 BEN 4 (NLS), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193687, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2012). Under certain 5 circumstances, courts have required parties to obtain discovery into their opponents’ contentions 6 by way of interrogatories, rather than depositions under Rule 30(b)(6). For example, in 7 McCormick-Morgan, Inc. v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., the defendant sought to use Rule 30(b)(6) 8 depositions as a vehicle “for learning the bases for the contentions made and for the positions 9 taken (including all affirmative defenses [to counterclaims])” by the plaintiff. 134 F.R.D. 275, 286 (N.D. Cal. 1991), rev’d on other grounds ,765 F. Supp. 611 (N.D. Cal. 1991). The court 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 expressed concern about asking a non-lawyer witness to give a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on a 12 party’s contentions in “the particular setting” of that patent infringement case, in which “the bases 13 for contentions do not consist exclusively of relatively straightforward facts or evidence, as might 14 be true, by contrast in a case arising out a traffic accident” and “a substantial part of ‘the bases for 15 contentions’ really consists of quasi-legal argument.” Id. at 287. The court issued a protective 16 order prohibiting either party from pursuing the bases for the other’s contentions through Rule 17 30(b)(6) depositions, and ordered them instead to do so through contention interrogatories. Id. at 18 287-88. Similarly, in 3M Co. v. Kanbar, a trademark infringement case, the court declined to 19 compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the support for the plaintiff’s allegations that the accused 20 product was “identical” or “confusingly similar” to the plaintiff’s mark and for the allegation that 21 defendant’s product had caused “blurring, dilution or tarnishment” of plaintiff’s mark. No. C06- 22 01225 JW (HRL), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47513, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2007). The court 23 concluded that those topics were, “in effect, seeking legal conclusions that should not form the 24 basis for 30(b)(6) deposition topics.” Id. The court instead required plaintiff to respond to 25 contention interrogatories on those issues. Id. 26 MyMail’s offer to limit a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to one day on the six disputed topics 27 (ECF 38 at 2 n.1) helps alleviate the burden of such discovery on Yahoo. Given the nature of the 28 case and considerations of efficiency, however, the Court concludes that these topics should first 4 1 be explored through contention interrogatories. MyMail seeks a deposition to explore the basis for 2 the allegations in Yahoo’s complaint in the California action, which derive at least in part from 3 MyMail’s own allegations in the Texas action. In the unique circumstances of this case, these 4 topics are better explored, at least in the first instance, through contention interrogatories than 5 through deposition of Yahoo corporate representatives. Yahoo has offered to respond to “focused contention interrogatories on these topics” 6 within fifteen (15) calendar days. ECF 38 at 4, 5. Accordingly, Yahoo is ordered to respond 8 within fifteen (15) calendar days of service to contention interrogatories on the topics identified in 9 footnote 1 of the parties’ joint discovery letter brief. Although MyMail is not foreclosed from 10 rewording the interrogatories, subject to objection by Yahoo, the Court notes that it considers 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 7 interrogatories phrased in terms of the topics identified in footnote 1 to be sufficiently “focused.” 12 The denial of MyMail’s motion to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on these topics is without 13 prejudice to renewal of its request if a deposition is necessary following MyMail’s review of 14 Yahoo’s response to contention interrogatories. 15 III. 16 CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, MyMail’s request for an order compelling Yahoo to 17 produce one or more corporate witnesses to appear in response to MyMail’s two Rule 30(b)(6) 18 deposition notices is DENIED. Yahoo is ordered to respond within fifteen (15) calendar days to 19 contention interrogatories on the topics identified in footnote 1 of the parties’ joint discovery letter 20 brief (ECF 38). This order is without prejudice to MyMail’s ability to seek a deposition on these 21 topics if necessary following MyMail’s receipt and review of Yahoo’s interrogatory responses. 22 23 SO ORDERED. Dated: May 18, 2017 24 25 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?