Yu v. ByteDance Inc.

Background

The court resolved two discovery disputes. Yu sought to depose Yiming Zhang, one of the founders and the former chief executive of ByteDance Ltd. Yu argued that Zhang had relevant personal knowledge because his signature appeared on three disputed documents and because Zhang allegedly participated in negotiations about Yu’s employment.

ByteDance Inc. objected, stating that Zhang lived and worked in Asia, lacked specific information, and was not personally involved in negotiating or executing Yu’s contracts. ByteDance said that Jinmei Xiao and Meili Wu executed the agreements on its behalf using Zhang’s authorized signature stamp, and that Linlin Fan witnessed Yu sign two agreements. ByteDance offered those witnesses for depositions in South Korea or Singapore, but Yu declined. The parties agreed that Zhang’s proposed deposition was an “apex” deposition, meaning a deposition of a high-level corporate official.

Deposition of Yiming Zhang

Courts considering an apex deposition examine whether the proposed witness has unique, firsthand, non-repetitive knowledge and whether the requesting party has exhausted less intrusive discovery methods. The court said it was unclear whether Zhang had unique firsthand knowledge about negotiating or executing Yu’s contracts. It nevertheless found that Yu had not exhausted less intrusive methods, including written questions directed to Zhang, depositions of Xiao and Wu, and depositions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).

The court therefore quashed the deposition notice to Zhang, without prejudice to renewal if Yu could make a stronger showing that Zhang needed to be deposed.

Deposition of Wei “Ronnie” Hua

Yu also sought to depose Hua, ByteDance Inc.’s Head of Human Resources and Management. Yu said Hua oversaw his onboarding, was informed about missing onboarding paperwork, and was regularly updated about his employment negotiations. Yu argued that Hua should be deposed in Seattle because ByteDance had previously offered to produce him there and had represented that he worked there.

ByteDance responded that Hua was not involved in forming the contracts and said that its earlier statement that Hua was based in Seattle was mistaken. It stated that Hua currently lived and worked in Singapore and that any deposition should occur in Asia.

The court was not persuaded that Hua lacked relevant information, in part because ByteDance had previously offered to make him available for deposition. The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 generally limits a subpoena for a deposition to locations within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conducts business in person. The court directed ByteDance to file a sworn declaration stating where Hua lives and works and whether he regularly conducts business in Seattle. The declaration was due by August 2, 2024.

If ByteDance filed a declaration stating that Hua lived, worked, and regularly conducted business in Singapore, Yu could depose Hua in Asia at a mutually agreeable location or coordinate with ByteDance for a remote deposition. The order also stated that, by August 2, ByteDance was required either to file declarations previously ordered in the court’s June 7 discovery order or to file a letter explaining why it had not filed them.

Disposition

The court quashed Zhang’s deposition notice without prejudice to renewal upon a stronger showing. Regarding Hua, it required ByteDance to provide the specified sworn location information and described the resulting deposition options. Susan Illston signed the order as United States District Judge.