In re Nexus 6P Products Liability Litigation

Filing 116

ORDER REGARDING 114 JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY PLAN AS TO PLAINTIFFS AND HUAWEI. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/7/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2018)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

8

Case No. 17-cv-02185-BLF

9
10

IN RE NEXUS 6P PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ORDER REGARDING
JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY PLAN
AS TO PLAINTIFFS AND HUAWEI

12
13
14
15

Before the Court is the jurisdictional discovery plan submitted by Plaintiffs Roy Berry,

16

Jonathan Makcharoenwoodhi, Alex Gorbatchev, Brian Christensen, Anthony Martorello, Khanh

17

Tran, Edward Beheler, Yuriy Davydov, Rebecca Harrison, Zachary Himes, Taylor Jones, Paul

18

Servodio, Justin Leone, James Poore, Jr., and Kenneth Johnston (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant

19

Huawei Device USA, Inc. (“Huawei”). See ECF 114. Although the parties have come to an

20

agreement on certain issues, they dispute the substantive scope of discovery, whether requests for

21

production and fact witness depositions are appropriate at this time, and whether Huawei may seek

22

any jurisdictional discovery from Plaintiffs. Id. The Court resolves the parties’ remaining

23

disputes as follows.

24
25

I.

HUAWEI’S REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY FROM
PLAINTIFFS

Huawei requests discovery into where Plaintiffs purchased their phones, where Plaintiffs
26
lived at the time they purchased their phones, and where Plaintiffs experienced the alleged
27
bootloop and battery drain defects. See ECF 114 at 7. Plaintiffs argue that jurisdictional
28

1

discovery of Plaintiffs is not warranted and makes little sense in light of Plaintiffs’ forthcoming

2

amendments to the complaint. Id. at 4. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs on this point. As the

3

Court recently indicated in its Order Granting With Leave to Amend Huawei’s Motion to Dismiss

4

for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, the Consolidated Amended Complaint is defective in part

5

because it “does not indicate where Plaintiffs purchased their phones, where Plaintiffs experienced

6

the defects, or even where Plaintiffs were residing at the time that they purchased their phones.”

7

ECF 113 at 7.

8

Accordingly, the Court anticipates that Plaintiffs will address this information in the

9

Amended Complaint per the Court’s Order. Huawei’s request for discovery from Plaintiffs at this
stage is DENIED.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

II.

12

The parties also disagree on the scope of the substantive topics for jurisdictional discovery.

13
14

SCOPE OF DISCOVERY - TOPICS

Plaintiffs believe the following topics are appropriate for jurisdictional discovery:
1. Activities performed by Huawei, whether individually or in collaboration with Google,
in or purposefully directed toward California with respect to or as reflected in:

15

(a)

16

Android interoperability, manufacture, and promotion);

17
(b)

18

(c)

20

investigation, research, and analysis concerning the Nexus 6P bootloop and
battery drain defects; and

21
(d)

22

Nexus 6P customer service, including handling of customer complaints and
warranty claims concerning the bootloop and battery drain defects.

23

25

the contracts governing Defendants’ collaboration on development of the
Nexus 6P;

19

24

development of the Nexus 6P (i.e., research, design, testing, analysis,

2.

The identities, titles, and work of Huawei personnel who worked in California on any
of the above activities.

26

See ECF 114 at 1-2. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ scope is too broad. Accordingly, the Court

27

ADOPTS Huawei’s proposal regarding the scope of discovery topics WITH MODIFICATIONS.

28

Plaintiffs may enlarge the scope to include activities “purposefully directed toward California”
2

1

that are relevant to the claims asserted. Jurisdictional discovery shall therefore be limited to the

2

following topics:

3

1.

Activities performed in or purposefully directed toward California by Huawei—

4

whether individually or in collaboration with Google—with respect to the

5

development of the Nexus 6P.
2.

6

Identification of the particular research and development activities related to the

7

development of the Nexus 6P that were conducted at Huawei’s Santa Clara,

8

California facility.
3.

9

Activities performed in or purposefully directed toward California by Huawei
with respect to the handling of customer complaints and warranty claims

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

concerning the alleged bootloop and battery drain defects in the Nexus 6P.
4.

12

Identification of Huawei personnel who worked in California on any of the above
activities.1

13
14

These topics may cover those topics requested by Plaintiffs, but shall not be open ended in scope.

15

Should further disputes arise regarding the scope of topics for jurisdictional discovery, the parties

16

are ORDERED to meet and confer, and if unresolved, to raise such disputes with the Magistrate

17

Judge on or before March 14, 2018.

18

III.

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

19

Plaintiffs have prepared seven (7) requests for production of documents (“RFPs”) from

20

Huawei. See Exh. B, ECF 114-2. Huawei argues that these requests will be “burdensome,

21

inefficient, and unnecessary” because Plaintiffs seek documents that will be difficult to identify,

22

and unreasonably request Huawei “to collect all documents related to the development of the

23

Nexus 6P, and scour them for any indication of California activity.” See ECF 114 at 9.
In light of the Court’s narrowing of the topics of discovery, described above, the Court

24
25

agrees with Huawei that Plaintiffs’ proposed RFPs are too broad. See ECF 114-2. The parties are

26

hereby ORDERED to meet and confer on or before March 14, 2018 to narrow the RFPs or

27
1

28

As explained above, the Court does not adopt Huawei’s request—listed as topic 5 in its statement
on the scope of jurisdictional discovery—to take jurisdictional discovery of Plaintiffs.
3

1

address continuing disputes regarding the RFPs to the Magistrate Judge in light of this Court’s

2

Order limiting the scope of discovery. Moreover, it is inefficient for the Court to require

3

depositions without the production of documents. The Court therefore expects significant

4

narrowing of the scope of Plaintiffs’ RFPs.

5

IV.

INTERROGATORIES

6

Plaintiffs have also prepared one set of four interrogatories aimed at gathering

7

jurisdictional discovery of Huawei’s activities in or purposefully directed to California. See ECF

8

114-3. The parties are ORDERED to continue to meet and confer on the scope of Plaintiffs’

9

interrogatories in light of the narrowing of the discovery topics and RFPs.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

As explained above, Huawei’s request to propound interrogatories on Plaintiffs for
purposes of jurisdictional discovery is DENIED.

12

V.

DEPOSITIONS

13

Plaintiffs seek to take the depositions of the following witnesses:

14

(i)

two of the three California witnesses Huawei identified in its initial disclosures for

15

two hours each on the subjects on which Huawei designated them as

16

knowledgeable; and

17
18

(ii)

a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the general topics the Court approves, for up to the
standard seven hours.

19

See ECF 114 at 4-5. Huawei agrees to provide a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding the

20

court-ordered topics of jurisdictional discovery. Id. at 10. However, Huawei opposes Plaintiffs’

21

request to take three depositions of California-based employees, who are knowledgeable as to

22

merits, rather than jurisdictional, discovery. Id. Huawei indicates that it is willing to meet and

23

confer with Plaintiffs after the 30(b)(6) deposition if Plaintiffs believe that the 30(b)(6) designee is

24

unable to provide sufficient information regarding the scope of jurisdictional discovery. Id.

25

The Court ADOPTS Huawei’s approach, and will allow one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition for

26

Plaintiffs. Huawei is not required to produce the California witnesses identified in its initial

27

disclosures at this time.

28
4

1
2

VI.

CASE SCHEDULE

The Court has also reviewed the parties’ proposals regarding the case schedule. ECF 114 at

3

10-11. The Court ADOPTS Plaintiffs’ proposals AS MODIFIED and SETS the following

4

schedule with respect to jurisdictional discovery:

5
6

Name of Filing or Event

Deadline

7

Deadline for parties to meet and confer to
narrow scope of discovery in accordance with
this Order

March 14, 2018

Deadline to serve written discovery requests
and deposition notices

Within three days of meet and confer to narrow
scope as directed

Deadline to serve interrogatory responses

Within 35 days after Plaintiffs serve discovery
requests

Deadline to complete production of documents
responsive to requests for production

Within 35 days after Plaintiffs serve discovery
requests

Huawei produces witnesses for deposition

Within 25 days after Huawei provides
interrogatory responses and completes its
production of responsive documents

Deadline for filing amended complaint

June 8, 2018

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23
24

Dated: March 7, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
5