QBEX Computadoras S.A., v. Intel Corporation

Filing 76

ORDER REGARDING 75 JUNE 14, 2018 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 6/19/2018. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

QBEX COMPUTADORAS S.A.,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER REGARDING JUNE 14, 2018
JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER

v.

9
10

INTEL CORPORATION,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-03375-LHK (SVK)

Defendant.

Re: Dkt. No. 75

Before the Court is a discovery dispute relating to the deposition of Plaintiff Qbex

12
13

Computadores, S.A.’s (“Qbex”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) representative. ECF 75. In this matter,

14

Qbex alleges that Intel Corporation (“Intel”) provided defective microprocessors that were

15

incorporated into smartphones sold by Qbex in Brazil. On May 25, 2018, Intel noticed the

16

deposition of Qbex’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) representative for June 7 and 8, 2018, in Los

17

Angeles, California.1 On June 1, 2018, Qbex notified Intel it would not produce a witness for a

18

deposition on those dates. On June 5, the parties met and conferred without success, and on June

19

6, Qbex served objections to Intel’s requested deposition topics.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition

20
21

without oral argument. The Court ORDERS as follows:

22

1. Qbex must produce its Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) representative for a deposition to take place

23

on or before July 13, 2018. Qbex has a duty produce a representative witness, and Qbex

24

can only cancel or stay a properly noticed deposition by obtaining a protective order from

25

the Court. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Dolman, 333 F.2d 257, 269 (9th Cir. 1964). Qbex

26

has neither moved for a protective order nor demonstrated the necessary good cause. See

27
1

28

Intel had previously issued Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) notices on March 6 and April 24, 2018.
Presumably each successive notice preempted the previous notice.

1

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A party

2

asserting good cause bears the burden . . . of showing that specific prejudice or harm will

3

result if no protective order is granted.”).

4

2. The parties shall meet and confer immediately regarding the deposition topics and Qbex’s

5

objections thereto. The parties are reminded of their obligation under the Local Rules to

6

meet and confer in good faith. See Twilio, Inc. v. Telesign Corp., No. 6CV06925LHKSVK,

7

2017 WL 5525929, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2017). If the parties cannot resolve their

8

dispute, they must identify any outstanding issues in a joint statement by June 25, 2018.

9

The parties’ statement must comply with the Court’s standing order and briefly describe
each unresolved issue with particularity as well as state each party’s proposed compromise

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

with respect to each issue in a coordinated format that allows for easy comparison.

12

3. Intel has not yet requested to take Mr. Joabe Fonseca’s deposition in his personal capacity,

13

so Intel’s ability to do so is not properly before the Court. It appears that Qbex has made a

14

record of its offer to make Mr. Fonseca available immediately following the Fed. R. Civ.

15

P. 30(b)(6) deposition.

16
17
18

4. Finally, the Court denies Intel’s motion for sanctions without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 19, 2018

19
20
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2