Spectrum Scientifics, LLC v. Celestron Acquisition, LLC

Background

The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs sought corporate-representative depositions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) of Synta Tech and Suzhou Synta. The disputes concerned the scope of questioning about document preservation and destruction, counsel’s knowledge of the destruction, Joyce Huang’s whereabouts, and the timing, location, and method of the depositions.

The Synta defendants had decided in 2016 to cease operations and dispose of their corporate records. The opinion states that it was unclear whether a third party removed the records and they still existed, or whether the records were destroyed. It appeared undisputed that the records were no longer in the defendants’ possession, custody, or control.

Document preservation and destruction

The court explained that the duty to preserve documents begins when litigation is reasonably foreseeable, based on the specific facts. Plaintiffs did not identify circumstances showing that the Synta defendants should have anticipated further litigation after settling the Orion litigation and before disposing of their records. The court was not persuaded that remarks by defense counsel during a discovery conference established otherwise.

The court therefore limited Topics 1–3 and 11. Plaintiffs could question the Synta defendants about their decision to destroy or discard the records, the reasons for that decision, the status of the Orion settlement when the records were discarded, and whether they anticipated further litigation for which the records would be relevant. Plaintiffs could not question them about preservation policies and practices before the Orion litigation or their understanding of other litigation that might have arisen from the Orion dispute.

Counsel’s knowledge

For Topic 14, the court permitted questions about when counsel learned that the records had been discarded, who participated in the communication, and how long it lasted. Plaintiffs could not question the Synta defendants about the contents of communications between the defendants and their attorneys because those communications were privileged.

Joyce Huang

For Topic 15, the court allowed questions about information within the Synta defendants’ possession, custody, or control that could help locate Joyce Huang or the records. This included known residential addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and the names of her employers from the time the records were discarded through the present. The defendants did not have to provide information about where Huang traveled, vacationed, or visited, and did not have to search for information they did not already control.

Scheduling and disposition

The court did not change its prior order concerning the default location for in-person depositions. Plaintiffs could take in-person depositions of the Synta defendants when public-health conditions and travel restrictions permitted. The court also stated that parties could use remote depositions but would not manage the parties’ scheduling or be sympathetic to delays caused by declining a safe remote option.

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi permitted Plaintiffs to take the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions on Topics 1–3, 11, 14, and 15, subject to the stated limits. The court denied Plaintiffs’ request for an order regarding the scheduling of those depositions.