Actian Corporation v. Radisys Corporation
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-00895
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Actian Corporation v. Radisys Corporation, Judge Hamilton resolved discovery disputes by requiring continued discovery but denying an early request to expand depositions.
Actian Corporation, Radisys Corporation, Anam Technologies, Ltd., and the parties’ ongoing discovery process.
What happened
Actian Corporation v. Radisys Corporation involved five disputes about ongoing discovery, including document production, depositions, and whether Anam Technologies could wait for a decision on its motion challenging personal jurisdiction.
The court ruled that Anam could not delay responding to discovery merely because its motion was pending. It denied Actian’s request to compel Radisys’s outstanding document production immediately and also denied Radisys’s request to prevent additional depositions based on later document production. The defendants’ objections to scheduling certain depositions were overruled.
The court also sustained the defendants’ objection to Actian’s request to increase the deposition limit from 10 to 17 because no depositions had yet occurred. Judge Hamilton issued the discovery order on October 11, 2022.
The detailed version
- Actian Corporation v. Radisys Corporation · No. 4:22-cv-00895
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 11, 2022
Background
The court considered a joint discovery letter brief describing five ongoing disputes. The first four concerned alleged delays in discovery responses, document production, and scheduling depositions. The fifth concerned Actian’s request to increase the 10-deposition limit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)(i) to 17 witnesses.
Rulings on Discovery Delays
The court overruled Anam Technologies, Ltd.’s objection to Actian’s discovery requests while Anam’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was pending. The court stated that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not automatically stay discovery when a motion to dismiss is filed. Anam had not sought a stay or protective order, and the court noted Anam’s participation in the case, including answering the complaint and agreeing to the case schedule.
The court denied Actian’s request to compel Radisys Corporation to complete outstanding document production without further delay. The court relied on Radisys’s report that it was continuing to review and produce documents on a rolling basis and was diligently engaging in discovery.
The court also denied Radisys’s request to preclude Actian from re-deposing witnesses based on supplemental document production. The court stated that Actian’s diligence in conducting discovery need not be restricted by Radisys’s delays. The court overruled the defendants’ objections to Actian’s efforts to schedule Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and stated that the parties should work diligently to schedule and complete necessary depositions without abusing the discovery process.
Deposition Limit
The court sustained the defendants’ objection to Actian’s request to expand the deposition limit from 10 to 17 witnesses. Because no depositions had yet been taken, the court found Actian’s request for a preemptive expansion premature.
Disposition
The order overruled Anam’s discovery objection, denied Actian’s request to compel Radisys’s outstanding document production, denied Radisys’s request to preclude re-depositions, overruled the defendants’ objections to scheduling depositions, and sustained the defendants’ objection to expanding the deposition limit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.