Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited v. SIMO Holdings Inc.

Background

The parties submitted two discovery letters. The defendants sought depositions of Zhiping Peng, described as a director of uCloudlink (America) and chairman of the board of uCloudlink Group, Inc., and Zhigang Du, described as a director and chief operating officer of uCloudlink Group, Inc. The plaintiffs argued that Peng and Du did not have unique firsthand knowledge and that other witnesses and company-representative depositions would cover the subjects.

The plaintiffs also sought additional technical documents responsive to requests for production Nos. 10, 24–26, 40, 74–76, and 79. They argued that the defendants’ production had been selective. The defendants said they were continuing to search for responsive documents and make productions, and that the plaintiffs could identify deficiencies after reviewing the documents produced.

Apex Depositions

An “apex deposition” is the deposition of a high-level executive. The court explained that it may limit such discovery when the information can be obtained from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Relevant considerations included whether the executive had unique, non-repetitive firsthand knowledge and whether the requesting party had pursued less intrusive discovery methods.

On the record before it, and because other witnesses would be deposed, the court denied the defendants’ request for the apex depositions. The plaintiffs had shown that the depositions were not necessary at that time. The court preserved the issue: after completing the other discovery, the defendants could raise newly identified topics that were uniquely known by Peng or Du in another discovery letter.

Requests for Production

The court extended the deadline for the defendants’ ongoing productions to January 8, 2021. The plaintiffs could identify deficiencies, and within seven days after that identification—or by January 11, 2021, if the deadline fell during the holidays—the defendants had to propose a schedule for completing any additional production. The court preserved the issue for possible later consideration after the parties completed this process. The order did not itself compel a specific production of documents.

Future Discovery Disputes and Disposition

The court stated that the parties could raise further discovery disputes within seven days after January 8, 2021, or any later extended deadline. They could also agree to extend the deadline for producing information responsive to the requests. The parties could not file additional discovery letters until January 8, 2021, so they could confer further before seeking court intervention.

Judge Laurel Beeler concluded that the order disposed of the two discovery letters, ECF Nos. 211 and 212. The order was an ancillary discovery ruling and did not decide the underlying claims.