Concurrent Ventures, LLC, et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.

Background

This patent-infringement case concerns data-processing units used in storage, networking, and artificial-intelligence infrastructure. The plaintiffs assert five patents against at least twelve accused products. The parties submitted a discovery dispute concerning depositions of remaining witnesses.

The plaintiffs asked the court to order that the depositions could proceed remotely, citing cost savings, efficiency, and scheduling conflicts involving Jewish High Holidays. The defendants agreed that all currently scheduled depositions, and future depositions affected by religious holidays or logistical impediments, could proceed remotely. They asked the court to impose two conditions on all remote depositions: physical copies of exhibits for witnesses and an in-person court reporter. The plaintiffs opposed those conditions.

Rulings

The plaintiffs’ request for remote depositions was granted as modified. Any currently scheduled or future deposition may proceed remotely at the request of the noticing party. The court expected the parties to cooperate with reasonable requests from the non-noticing party, including requests related to religious holidays or other logistical impediments. A party that chooses to have its counsel present with a witness during a remote deposition must bear its own costs. A party taking a remote deposition must generally provide an amended notice at least three days beforehand; for a deposition scheduled within three days after the order, the party must confirm by email within twenty-four hours and serve an amended notice as soon as possible.

The defendants’ request for in-person court reporters was denied. The court held that the federal rules and decisions in the district do not require a court reporter to be physically located with the witness. Every remote deposition must still have a court reporter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(5). The reporter may attend remotely with the other participants or in person at either party’s request. The party requesting an in-person reporter must pay any difference between the remote and in-person costs.

The defendants’ request for physical copies of exhibits was granted as modified. At least twenty-four hours before a scheduled remote deposition, the taking party must provide the other side with digital copies of all intended exhibits, labeled with the case’s tracking numbers. The receiving party may decide whether to print physical copies and must bear the printing cost. The order does not prohibit sharing exhibits through videoconference technology.

Legal Standard and Disposition

The court applied the discovery rules allowing discovery of relevant, nonprivileged information proportional to the needs of the case. It also relied on the rule permitting depositions by telephone or other remote means through party agreement or court order. The order resolved the discovery dispute identified as ECF No. 308. Judge Laurel Beeler found no bad faith by either side on the record presented and reminded the parties to cooperate and act in good faith as fact discovery approached its close.