Kannan v. Apple Inc.

Filing 138

Order re Further Deposition of Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 10/4/2019. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2019)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 RAJA KANNAN, Plaintiff, 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Case No.17-cv-07305-EJD (VKD) ORDER RE FURTHER DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF v. Dkt. No. 112 APPLE INC., Defendant. The Court has considered the parties’ submissions and arguments on the question of 14 whether and under what circumstances defendant Apple Inc. make take a further deposition of 15 plaintiff Raja Kannan. Dkt. Nos. 112, 130, 131, 137. As the Court explained in its September 25, 16 2019 order, Apple has made a showing that some documents it sought in discovery in advance of 17 Mr. Kannan’s May 1, 2019 deposition were not timely produced, and that Mr. Kannan may have 18 withheld improperly an unknown quantity of responsive documents on grounds of privilege. See 19 Dkt. No. 120 at 5–6. The parties have made a number of submissions since then advising the 20 Court of their respective views regarding whether Mr. Kannan may be deposed by 21 videoconference while in India and describing the logistical challenges such a deposition may 22 pose. Dkt. Nos. 130, 131, 137. The parties agree that no law or other authority prohibits Mr. 23 Kannan, a U.S. citizen, from voluntarily submitting to a deposition in India. They dispute the 24 nature and extent of the logistical challenges of conducting such a deposition by videoconference, 25 and whether, in view of those challenges, the Court should order Mr. Kannan to appear in the 26 United States for further deposition. 27 28 Having considered the parties’ submissions and arguments, the Court finds that Apple has demonstrated good cause for a further deposition of Mr. Kannan, not to exceed three hours of 1 testimony on the record. The Court is not persuaded that the challenges of taking such a 2 deposition by videoconference in India are as substantial as Apple claims. While the time 3 difference between California and Chennai, India is substantial, this is not an insurmountable 4 obstacle for a short deposition. The Court also is not persuaded that Apple will be unable to 5 arrange for a videoconference with sufficient video and audio quality, or that it will be unable to 6 arrange for exhibits to be provided to Mr. Kannan in advance or handed to him in the deposition. 7 See, e.g., Carrico v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 15-cv-02087 DMR, 2016 WL 1265854 (N.D. Cal. 8 Apr. 1, 2016) (discussing logistics of depositions taken by remote means). Accordingly, the Court 9 orders as follows: 1. Apple may take a further deposition of Mr. Kannan by videoconference while he is in 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Chennai, India. If Apple prefers to take the deposition by telephonic means instead, it 12 may do so. 13 2. The deposition will be limited to three hours of testimony on the record. 14 3. The parties shall confer and agree upon a mutually acceptable date and time for the 15 deposition. Unless they agree otherwise, the deposition must take place between the 16 hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Pacific Time or 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Pacific 17 Time, at Apple’s election. 18 4. Apple may elect to take Mr. Kannan’s further deposition following resolution of the 19 parties’ dispute regarding documents Mr. Kannan previously withheld as privileged. 20 5. Apple may choose the location of the deposition in Chennai. Mr. Kannan and his 21 counsel must cooperate with Apple and its counsel with respect to the arrangements for 22 such deposition. 23 6. Mr. Kannan must stipulate in advance of the deposition that he will not object to the 24 taking of his deposition or the use of his deposition testimony in this action on any 25 ground related to the means by which the deposition is taken or the fact that it is taken 26 while he is in India. 27 7. Mr. Kannan must stipulate in advance of the deposition that the oath Mr. Kannan takes 28 will have the same legal effect as if it were administered in California and in the United 2 1 States, and that his testimony will be treated as if given under oath in California and in 2 the United States. 3 If Mr. Kannan plans to travel to the United States for any reason before the close of fact 4 discovery, he shall immediately advise Apple of such plan so that Apple may arrange to take this 5 further deposition of Mr. Kannan in person in the United States. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 4, 2019 8 9 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI United States Magistrate Judge 10 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 3

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?