Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.

Background

Nicky Laatz and Zazzle asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute over whether Zazzle should produce Jeff Beaver for a deposition. Laatz identified Beaver as Zazzle’s chief operating officer, while Zazzle identified him as its co-founder and chief strategy officer. The opinion states that Beaver was a high-level Zazzle executive whose deposition could be considered an “apex” deposition.

Laatz argued that she was entitled to depose Beaver under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(1). She pointed to more than 30 emails on Zazzle’s privilege log and other communications concerning font licensing. She argued that Beaver might know whether he reviewed the offering page and license terms and knew whether Zazzle’s intended use of the fonts violated those terms. She also argued that Zazzle’s corporate representative had been unable to fully answer a deposition topic concerning the decision to purchase the license.

Zazzle argued that Beaver did not have unique firsthand knowledge of relevant facts. It said that Beaver was copied on all but one of the emails identified by Laatz, and that the one email he authored did not refer to the disputed font or its license terms. Zazzle also argued that Laatz had not first used less intrusive methods to obtain the information, including asking Zazzle’s corporate representative about Beaver’s role in purchasing the license.

Legal standard

Rule 30 generally permits a party to depose any person, including an opposing party. But under Rule 26(c)(1), a court may issue a protective order for good cause to prevent annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including by forbidding or limiting a deposition. The party seeking protection must show the harm or prejudice that would result from the discovery.

For a deposition of a high-level executive, the court may consider whether the executive has unique firsthand knowledge of facts at issue and whether the requesting party has exhausted less intrusive ways to obtain the information. The court may limit discovery that can be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the documents and deposition excerpts submitted by the parties. It found that Zazzle’s corporate representative had identified people other than Beaver who were involved in deciding to purchase the disputed font license. The court also found that the communications submitted by the parties did not show that Beaver had a role in purchasing the license beyond what had already been established.

The court concluded that Zazzle had shown Beaver did not have unique firsthand knowledge bearing on any relevant claim or defense. It further concluded that Laatz had already obtained discovery identifying the Zazzle personnel involved in the license-purchase decision.

Disposition

The court denied Laatz’s request for an order requiring Beaver to testify in a deposition. The order resolved the discovery dispute and did not decide the underlying font-license claims.