Sunsauce Foods Industrial Corp., Ltd v. Son Fish Sauce USA Corporation

Background

The court considered the parties’ joint discovery submission about the location and format of Plaintiff’s deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows an organization to designate a representative to testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization. Plaintiff sought permission for its designee to appear remotely rather than travel from Thailand to California.

Defendant initially noticed the deposition in the Northern District of California, where Plaintiff brought the action. The parties postponed the deposition and Defendant later re-noticed it for Irvine, California, in the Central District of California. Plaintiff objected to requiring its designee to appear in California or elsewhere in the United States, rather than appearing remotely.

Court’s reasoning

The court rejected Plaintiff’s reliance on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(2), explaining that this provision concerns protective orders and does not establish a general rule governing the location of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. The court also noted that neither Rule 26 nor the general deposition provisions of Rule 30 specifies the proper location for this type of deposition.

Applying the general rule that a plaintiff ordinarily must make itself available for examination in the district where it filed suit, the court held that the proper location was the Northern District of California. A plaintiff seeking to avoid that forum must show undue hardship or exceptional or compelling circumstances. The court found that Plaintiff’s unspecified financial burden and the length of the flight from Thailand were ordinary travel concerns and did not meet that standard.

Ruling

The court denied Plaintiff’s request to permit its Rule 30(b)(6) designee to appear for deposition remotely. It ordered that the designee appear in person in the Northern District of California, while allowing the parties to stipulate to another location in California. The court terminated the joint discovery submission.

The court also strongly cautioned counsel for both parties to carefully check legal citations in future filings. It said Plaintiff’s erroneous citation raised the possibility of a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2), which requires that legal contentions in filings be supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law. The opinion states that the court would address further misrepresentations of law appropriately; it does not state that it imposed a sanction in this order.