Spectrum Scientifics, LLC v. Celestron Acquisition, LLC

Background

The opinion concerns related cases identified in the court’s caption as In re Telescopes Antitrust Litigation, including Case Nos. 20-cv-03639-EJD and 20-cv-03642-EJD. The parties agreed on nearly all parts of a proposed discovery plan but asked the court to resolve a dispute about the locations of depositions conducted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule permits a corporation or other organization to designate one or more people to testify about subjects identified in a deposition notice.

The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs proposed that Rule 30(b)(6) depositions take place presumptively in the Northern District of California. The defendants proposed deciding the locations of Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and individual depositions separately when each deposition was noticed.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that depositions of corporations or other entities ordinarily take place at the entity’s principal place of business. It also noted that plaintiffs, including corporate plaintiffs, generally must make themselves available for deposition in the district where the case is pending. The court nevertheless has discretion to require a different location based on factors such as convenience, the convenience of the people being deposed, the possibility of discovery disputes, and the burden and expense of a particular location.

For Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of parties, the court agreed with the plaintiffs that setting a default location in advance would promote fairness and efficiency. The court noted that some corporate parties had principal places of business outside the United States, including two defendant corporations with principal places of business in China, where obtaining deposition testimony might be difficult or impossible according to the information before the court. The court also expected that using the Northern District of California could reduce costs because many lawyers would likely attend the depositions and because discovery disputes might require resolution by that court.

Ruling

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered that Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of party organizations should presumptively take place in the Northern District of California. The presumption was subject to rebuttal or modification based on the circumstances of a particular deposition. The party or parties noticing or conducting the deposition were responsible for reasonable travel and lodging expenses for Rule 30(b)(6) designees who had to travel to the Northern District of California.

The court declined to establish a presumptive location in advance for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of nonparties who were not before the court and might not be within its jurisdiction. For depositions of parties and witnesses who were not Rule 30(b)(6) designees, the court directed the parties to confer about the most convenient and cost-effective method and location, including travel to the United States, travel to the Northern or Central District of California, or remote depositions. The court also directed the parties to refile their discovery plan as a proposed order by May 10, 2021, reflecting these decisions.