Willis Electric Co., Ltd. v. Polygroup Limited

Background

Willis Electric Co., Ltd. sued Polygroup Macau Ltd. (BVI), Polytree (H.K) Co. Ltd., and Polygroup Trading Limited, alleging infringement of six United States patents involving lighted artificial holiday trees. Willis Electric later amended its complaint to add allegations of anticompetitive conduct.

Willis Electric moved to compel discovery, including depositions of Defendants’ employees in the United States. Defendants opposed that request, arguing that eight employees based in Hong Kong or China should instead be deposed in Hong Kong. Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez ruled that the depositions generally should occur in Hong Kong, but that any noticed employee traveling to the United States had to be deposed there. She later declined to change that ruling after considering the COVID-19 pandemic and encouraged the parties to remain flexible as travel conditions changed.

Review of the Discovery Ruling

Willis Electric appealed the portion of the magistrate judge’s February 20, 2020 order that denied its request to require China- and Hong Kong-based employees to travel to the United States for depositions. The district court explained that it could modify a magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive issue only if the ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. “Clearly erroneous” means that, after reviewing the evidence, the court has a firm conviction that a mistake was made. A ruling is “contrary to law” when it fails to apply or misapplies a relevant statute, case law, or procedural rule.

The court stated that corporate depositions ordinarily occur at the corporation’s principal place of business, while ordinary employees generally are deposed near their residence or principal workplace. Courts have broad discretion to choose a deposition location, considering the facts and equities of the case.

The court rejected Willis Electric’s arguments. First, the magistrate judge had considered the pandemic and concluded, based on the information available at the time, that travel between Hong Kong and the United States appeared equally likely to be affected. Second, the locations of the parties and deponents were legally relevant, and Willis Electric identified no authority requiring depositions to occur near counsel. Third, the record showed that the magistrate judge had considered the other factors Willis Electric identified, including travel, the parties’ relationship, the claims, and expense, even if she had not made separate express findings on each factor.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright affirmed the magistrate judge’s February 20, 2020 order. The ruling left in place the requirement that the depositions generally occur in Hong Kong, subject to the stated exception for employees traveling to the United States.