Kannan v. Apple Inc.

Background

The parties asked the court to resolve several discovery disputes and held a hearing on September 24, 2019. Kannan moved to compel Apple to comply with an earlier discovery order, sought sanctions, requested a corporate deposition on 27 topics, and sought protection concerning medical records obtained through subpoenas. Apple moved to compel Kannan to provide documents withheld based on privilege, complete other document production, and submit to a further deposition.

Kannan’s Motions

For Kannan’s motion concerning Apple’s compliance with the earlier discovery order, the court found that Kannan’s requests were less comprehensive and clear than he believed, while Apple’s production was incomplete. The court ordered Apple to produce, by October 1, 2019, specified information concerning the eight Apple employees who reported to Joseph Kotni during the relevant period. The required information included options and awards, pay statements with limited redactions, compensation calibration sheets and planning guidelines, reporting relationships, job levels and promotions, and available database reports showing compensation, stock awards, bonuses, and dividends. Apple did not have to manually create a report from its records. The court concluded that no sanctions were warranted at that time.

The court granted in part and denied in part Kannan’s motion to compel a corporate deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows a party to require an organization to designate witnesses to testify about specified topics. Apple had to designate witnesses for Topics 1–17 and 21–24, with limits on the relevant employees and time periods. Apple also had to designate a witness for Topic 18, but only regarding people who reported to Kotni’s employees. Apple did not have to designate a witness for Topics 19 and 20. The court deferred ruling on Topics 25–27 and required Apple to disclose its defense contentions and any claims of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection by October 8, 2019.

Regarding the medical records, the court ordered Apple to contact each medical provider that received a subpoena and ask whether the provider could reproduce records containing only the information specifically requested. Apple had to file a status report by September 27, 2019.

Apple’s Motions

The court found that Kannan’s privilege claims were significantly delayed and that his privilege log—the list describing documents withheld and the claimed protections—was inadequate. The court required Kannan to prepare and serve a privilege log complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) and Ninth Circuit requirements by October 8, 2019.

For Apple’s requests for production, the court required Apple to give Kannan a list of emails or other documents for which attachments appeared to be missing. Kannan then had one week after receiving the list to search for and produce any attachments he had. Kannan also had to complete production for Requests Nos. 14, 15, 16, and 21 by October 1, 2019, except for documents as to which he claimed privilege. For Requests Nos. 18 and 19, Kannan did not have to produce documents concerning his wife’s software development, but he did have to produce responsive documents concerning software applications developed by anyone using his Apple-issued computer equipment.

Apple also moved for a further deposition of Kannan. The court stated that some further deposition was likely warranted and was prepared to limit it to three hours by videoconference. Because the parties disputed whether Kannan could be deposed by videoconference while he was in India without using procedures under the Hague Convention, the court ordered them to research the issue, confer, investigate suitable facilities, and file a status report by October 1, 2019.

Other Orders

The parties could submit a proposed stipulated protective order with an “outside counsel’s eyes only” or “attorneys’ eyes only” designation by September 25, 2019. Apple had to provide Kannan with the availability of four witnesses for deposition by September 27, 2019. The court also imposed detailed procedures for future discovery disputes and warned that material noncompliance could result in sanctions, including an adverse determination of the dispute. The order did not relieve the parties from seeking any needed changes to case-management deadlines from the presiding judge.

Disposition

This was a discovery order rather than a decision on the underlying claims. The court granted in part and denied in part Kannan’s corporate-deposition motion, ordered the parties and Apple or Kannan to take the specified discovery steps, deferred the issue of Topics 25–27, and found that sanctions were not warranted at that time.