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)

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