Commure, Inc. v. Canopy Works, Inc.
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:24-cv-02592
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Commure v. Canopy Works, Magistrate Judge DeMarchi denied Canopy’s sanctions motion over canceled depositions and struck unauthorized supplemental filings.
Commure and Canopy were affected by the ruling. Canopy did not receive the requested Rule 37(d) monetary sanctions, while Commure avoided the requested sanctions. The court also struck the parties’ unauthorized supplemental filings and granted Canopy’s request to seal specified sanctions materials.
What happened
In Commure, Inc. v. Canopy Works, Inc., Canopy sought at least $125,141.09 in sanctions after Commure canceled depositions of its company representative and chief executive shortly before they were scheduled. The depositions were first canceled because the witness was not feeling well, then canceled again after Commure withdrew its preliminary-injunction motion.
Canopy argued that the second cancellation, together with the first, amounted to improper discovery conduct. The court noted that Canopy did not clearly insist that the depositions proceed after Commure withdrew its preliminary-injunction motion, and that it was unclear which preparation expenses could not be used for later depositions.
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied Canopy’s sanctions motion. The court also struck later supplemental filings because the parties had not obtained permission to file them, granted Canopy’s motion to seal portions of its sanctions materials, and denied as moot the parties’ motions to seal the supplemental materials.
The detailed version
- Commure, Inc. v. Canopy Works, Inc. · No. 5:24-cv-02592
- Virginia Demarchi
- June 18, 2025
Background
Canopy Works, Inc., a defendant and counterclaimant, asked for monetary sanctions of at least $125,141.09 based on the cancellation of two depositions: Commure, Inc.’s deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), and the individual deposition of Commure’s chief executive, Tanay Tandon. Tandon had also been designated as Commure’s corporate representative. The depositions were scheduled to occur on the same day, with Tandon providing both corporate and individual testimony.
The depositions were initially scheduled for September 20, 2024, and later rescheduled for October 10, 2024. On October 9, Commure told Canopy that Tandon was not feeling well and canceled the depositions. They were rescheduled for November 5, 2024. On November 4, Commure told Canopy that it had decided to withdraw its pending motion for a preliminary injunction and would not make Tandon available. Canopy did not clearly object that the depositions should proceed anyway; instead, it demanded that Commure immediately file a notice withdrawing the preliminary-injunction motion. Commure filed that notice that evening.
Rule 37(d) sanctions
Rule 37(d) permits sanctions, including payment of expenses, when a properly noticed deponent fails to appear. The court explained that a unilateral last-minute cancellation can sometimes be treated as a failure to appear. But it found that the circumstances here did not support sanctions under that rule.
Canopy acknowledged that it would not seek sanctions based only on the October cancellation because Tandon was not feeling well. Canopy’s main argument was that the second last-minute cancellation, viewed together with the first, constituted sanctionable discovery misconduct. The court found that Canopy did not insist that the November 5 depositions proceed after Commure withdrew its preliminary-injunction motion. The court also noted Canopy’s statement at the hearing that it believed there was no basis to proceed with the depositions at that time.
The court concluded that the record did not show a sanctionable failure to appear because it was objectively unclear whether the depositions were intended to go forward. It also could not readily determine what deposition-preparation work by Canopy or its experts could not be reused when the depositions eventually occurred. To the extent Canopy sought sanctions based on the preliminary-injunction motion’s merits or Commure’s overall conduct in the litigation, the court stated that those issues were not discovery misconduct questions properly resolved through this discovery sanctions motion.
Other rulings
The court struck supplemental briefs and exhibits filed months after the sanctions briefing closed because neither party had obtained permission to file them. The court did not consider those materials in deciding the sanctions motion. It granted Canopy’s motion to seal portions of its sanctions materials and denied as moot the parties’ motions to seal the supplemental materials.
Disposition
The court denied Canopy’s motion for Rule 37(d) sanctions for failure to appear at a deposition. Commure offered at the hearing to pay any cancellation fees Canopy incurred as a courtesy, and the court encouraged the parties to discuss whether reimbursement of such expenses could be agreed upon.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.