Spectrum Scientifics, LLC et al v. Celestron Acquisition, LLC et al

Filing 568

ORDER re 567 January 30, 2024 Discovery Dispute re Pioneer Documents Production and Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 2/6/2024. (vkdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 SAN JOSE DIVISION 5 6 IN RE TELESCOPES ANTITRUST LITIGATION 7 Case No. 20-cv-03642-EJD (VKD) ORDER RE JANUARY 30, 2024 DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE PIONEER DOCUMENTS PRODUCTION AND RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION 8 9 Re: Dkt. No. 567 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 The Court has reviewed the parties’ joint submission regarding whether and to what extent 13 plaintiff Pioneer Cycling & Fitness LLP (“Pioneer”) failed to produce relevant documents 14 sufficiently in advance of January 12, 2024 to permit defense counsel a reasonable amount of time 15 to prepare for Pioneer’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on that date. Dkt. No. 567. 16 The parties do not dispute that Pioneer produced 938 documents, comprising 17 approximately 4,000 pages on January 3, 2024—nine days before the scheduled deposition. See 18 id. at 2, 6. The parties also do not dispute that Pioneer made three boxes of paper sales receipts 19 available for inspection by defendants on January 10, 2024—two days before the scheduled 20 deposition. See id. at 3, 6-7. Despite the timing of this production, in the parties’ January 10, 21 2024 joint report, DPPs argued that defendants should be ordered to proceed with Pioneer’s Rule 22 30(b)(6) deposition on January 12, 2024 as scheduled. Dkt. No. 553 at 2. Defendants objected. 23 Id. at 7. 24 The Court set a schedule for the disputed depositions addressed in the parties’ joint report 25 and ordered Pioneer’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to proceed as scheduled on January 12, 2024. Dkt. 26 No. 555. However, the Court also ordered that “[i]f plaintiff did not produce all responsive 27 documents relevant to the noticed topics [for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition] sufficiently in advance 28 of the date of that deposition to permit defendants a reasonable time to prepare for it, the Court 1 will permit defendants to take a further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Pioneer Cycling addressing 2 any late-produced documents and information.” Id. at 2. United States District Court Northern District of California 3 In their current joint submission, the parties do not address whether any of the documents 4 Pioneer produced on January 3, 2024 or made available on January 10, 2024 are related to the 5 topics noticed for Pioneer’s deposition. Assuming the documents produced on January 3, 2024 6 are related to the noticed topics, the Court is persuaded that the timing of Pioneer’s production did 7 not allow sufficient time for defendants to review the production and prepare for the deposition. 8 With respect to the three boxes of paper sales receipts DPPs counsel made available for inspection 9 on January 10, 2024, the Court questions whether defendants really need to review this material, 10 much less take a deposition about it. However, defendants should have been afforded an 11 opportunity to inspect the material in advance of the scheduled deposition so that they could make 12 an informed decision about whether to question the witness about any of that material. DPPs’ 13 disclosure of the material two days before the scheduled deposition made this impossible. 14 Accordingly, DPPs shall make Pioneer’s witness available for a further Rule 30(b)(6) 15 deposition by defendants before March 15, 2024. By February 9, 2024, DPPs shall identify at 16 least three alternative dates on which the witness is available for this further deposition. DPPs 17 shall avoid identifying dates that would require double-tracking of depositions already scheduled. 18 DPPs shall reimburse defendants for any costs (not attorneys’ fees) defendants incur for this 19 further deposition that defendants would not have incurred if they could have completed the 20 deposition as scheduled on January 12, 2024. 21 The Court hereby lifts the stay on briefing regarding defendants’ motion for contempt and 22 sanctions (Dkt. No. 562). Defendants may re-notice their motion for hearing. However, the Court 23 seriously doubts that this incident warrants a finding of contempt, an award of sanctions, or any 24 other relief beyond what the Court has just ordered. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 6, 2024 27 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI United States Magistrate Judge 28 2

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?