Howington v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Background

The parties asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute about the location and sequence of the named plaintiffs’ depositions. The court decided the dispute without oral argument.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. asked the plaintiffs to produce each named plaintiff for an in-person deposition in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs objected that named plaintiffs who live outside the district should be deposed in or near their cities of residence. Alternatively, they asked the court to require Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. to reimburse travel expenses or conduct the depositions remotely. The plaintiffs also objected to the company’s request that the depositions occur in a particular order.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that plaintiffs generally must make themselves available for depositions in the district where the case is pending. That general rule applies to named plaintiffs in class actions. A different location may be appropriate based on factors including the convenience of the parties, counsel, and witnesses; the likelihood of discovery disputes requiring the court’s involvement; and the burden and expense of the proposed location.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown that requiring all named plaintiffs to appear in the district would create an undue hardship. It also found no exceptional or compelling circumstances requiring depositions near the plaintiffs’ residences. The court stated that the plaintiffs’ comparative financial resources were not relevant and that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause for remote depositions or for requiring the defendants to pay travel costs.

Regarding the sequence of the depositions, the court stated that neither side has an absolute right to dictate the order. Instead, the parties were expected to work cooperatively to minimize delay and accommodate genuine scheduling constraints.

Order

The court ordered the named plaintiffs to make themselves available for deposition in the Northern District of California unless the parties stipulate to a different location or remote video conference. The court said the parties should agree to an alternative when a witness has a medical condition making travel very difficult or impossible, or when another exceptional circumstance makes travel practically impossible. The order addressed discovery only and did not decide the underlying claims.