In re Sandisk SSDS Litigation

Background

The order resolves joint discovery letters concerning depositions. The first dispute concerned Plaintiffs’ request to depose David Goeckeler, identified as SanDisk’s chief executive. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs had not shown sufficient cause to depose an “apex” witness—that is, a high-level corporate executive. The court had previously rejected a formalistic approach that would impose strict exhaustion or unique-knowledge requirements, while noting that deposing a large company’s chief executive ordinarily creates a substantial burden.

Plaintiffs relied on evidence that Lisa Neitzel may have been involved in communications about the alleged product defect, that Neitzel reported to Lynne Cox, and that Cox reported to Goeckeler. One witness did not know whether Goeckeler was involved, and another said she believed he would have been made aware of the situation without knowing how. Plaintiffs also referred to emails suggesting that Goeckeler knew about customer complaints and asked about press coverage, but they did not provide those emails with the joint letter.

The second dispute concerned Plaintiffs’ deposition notices for Neitzel and Cox. Plaintiffs served the notices after a witness deposition indicated that Neitzel may have been involved in the Defendants’ communications strategy. The requested depositions were set for May 1, 2025, the day fact discovery closed. Defendants declined to produce the witnesses, asserting that the notices were untimely.

Rulings

The court found that Plaintiffs had not substantiated Goeckeler’s involvement in, or particularly relevant knowledge of, the alleged product defects or decisions about whether or how to disclose them. General awareness by a chief executive of alleged product defects did not by itself show that he could offer relevant testimony. The court concluded that the burden of deposing Goeckeler outweighed the likely relevance of his testimony. Defendants’ request for a protective order was granted, and Plaintiffs may not depose Goeckeler.

For Neitzel and Cox, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1), which requires reasonable notice of a deposition. The court stated that seven days’ notice was not unreasonable on its face, particularly because Defendants did not show that the witnesses or defense counsel were unavailable on May 1 or could not reasonably prepare. The court also found that Judge Rita F. Lin’s standing-order guidance about including a deposition-notice deadline in a case schedule did not itself establish a deadline in this case. Because no such deadline had been imposed, the court declined to infer one from the standing order.

Defendants were ORDERED to produce Neitzel and Cox for depositions no later than May 31, 2025.

Effect of the Order

This was a discovery order. It resolved whether particular depositions could proceed and did not decide the merits of the parties’ claims concerning the alleged product defects. The provided text does not clearly identify the signing judge’s full name; it refers separately to Judge Rita F. Lin’s standing order but does not establish that she issued this order.