Bonhomme v. Open Text Corp.

Background

The court addressed Defendant Open Text’s ex parte application—an application made without the ordinary briefing process—for an examination of Plaintiff Bonhomme concerning her debts. The examination dispute had been referred to Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang. The court had directed counsel to meet and confer, meaning to discuss the dispute in an effort to resolve or narrow it, and then file a joint status report.

The parties did not reach an agreement about the examination’s date or location. They also filed separate status reports rather than the joint report required by the court’s earlier order. The court criticized counsel’s inability to resolve what it described as straightforward scheduling and logistical issues.

Requested Arrangements

Open Text requested that the examination occur within 30 days of October 29, 2026, at the courthouse or at its counsel’s San Francisco office. Bonhomme cited scheduling conflicts involving herself or her counsel and proposed January 12, 13, or 14, 2027. She requested a neutral private conference room in Oakland at her expense or a location near the courthouse.

The court stated that Open Text did not explain why the proposed January dates were inappropriate or unavailable. It also stated that Bonhomme did not provide a substantive reason why the examination could not occur in a conference room at the San Francisco courthouse.

Ruling

The court exercised its authority to manage discovery and ordered that Open Text’s examination of Bonhomme take place on January 12, 2027, beginning at 9:00 a.m. The examination is limited to no more than seven hours on the record and must occur in a conference room near Courtroom F on the 15th Floor of the San Francisco courthouse. Counsel, the witness, the court reporter, and any videographer must report to the courtroom deputy in Courtroom F between 8:30 and 9:00 a.m.; the deputy will escort the participants to the conference room.

The court also ordered the parties and counsel to follow Section D of its Standing Discovery Order. That order requires courteous conduct, prohibits speaking objections, and limits instructions not to answer to preserving a privilege, enforcing a court-ordered limitation, or presenting a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(3). If a dispute arises during the examination, counsel must report in person to the courtroom deputy and send a joint email requesting the court’s attention. The court warned that improper conduct, unreasonable delay, or violations of the court’s orders or applicable rules may result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions or other penalties.

The order gives Bonhomme a notice that failure to appear could lead to arrest, contempt punishment, and an order requiring payment of the judgment creditor’s reasonable attorney’s fees. The order resolves docket entry 178 as to the debtor examination. It does not rule on Open Text’s separate request to extend a pre-existing hold on certain Schwab accounts. Judge Kang stated that request was not referred to him and ordered Open Text to present it as a separately filed motion directed to Judge Chhabria.