Synology Inc. v. Via Licensing Corporation

Background

The parties agreed that each side could take up to 10 fact-witness depositions, including depositions of corporate representatives under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). They also agreed that each deposition would be limited to seven hours unless they agreed to an extension. Before the depositions, Via accepted Synology’s proposal that the seven-hour limit would apply to all 30(b)(6) testimony.

The parties later arranged for Via to depose nearly all of Synology’s witnesses and corporate representatives during one week in Taipei. Synology told Via before the depositions that most or all of its witnesses would need a Mandarin translator and that Synology would provide one.

Via’s requests

In a joint discovery letter, Via complained that translation substantially lengthened the testimony and that Synology’s 30(b)(6) witnesses were unprepared on some subjects. Via requested additional deposition time for witness Z.P. Kao, or alternatively evidentiary sanctions concerning testimony about Synology’s database and other topics for which Kao had been designated. Via also requested seven additional hours of 30(b)(6) deposition time and monetary sanctions.

Court’s analysis

The court held Via to the seven-hour agreement. It reasoned that Via knew before the depositions that translators would be needed and should have understood that translation would slow the testimony. The court also found no basis to blame Synology’s check translator for the corrections made during the deposition. It therefore refused to allow Via to avoid the agreed time limit because the translation issue occurred as expected.

As to alleged witness unpreparedness, the court stated that the usual remedy would be a request for another 30(b)(6) deposition limited to the subjects on which the witness was unprepared. Via instead sought seven additional hours generally, not additional time focused on those subjects. The court also found that Via’s cited testimony—less than 25 pages from all of Synology’s 30(b)(6) witnesses—did not justify seven more hours even under Via’s interpretation of that testimony.

Ruling

The court denied Via’s request for an additional seven hours of 30(b)(6) deposition time. It also denied Via’s request for sanctions because the local rules require a sanctions motion to be separately filed and noticed. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson concluded: “Via’s motion to compel and request for sanctions are DENIED.”