Actian Corporation v. Radisys Corporation

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Actian Corporation v. Radisys Corporation

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 ACTIAN CORPORATION, Case No. 22-cv-00895-PJH 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. DISCOVERY ORDER

10 RADISYS CORPORATION, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 50 11 Defendants. 12

13 14 Before the court is a discovery letter brief. The jointly-submitted letter brief details 15 five areas of ongoing discovery disputes. Having read the papers filed by the parties and 16 carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause 17 appearing, the court hereby rules as follows. 18 The first four issues in the letter brief all appear to be based on defendants’ delay 19 in production, summarized as follows: 20 1. Whether defendant Anam Technologies, Ltd., may delay further responses to 21 discovery requests until its pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal 22 jurisdiction (Dkt. 47) is resolved; 23 2. Whether defendant Radisys Corporation may delay scheduling depositions of fact 24 witnesses until it anticipates completing associated document production; 25 3. Whether both defendants may delay scheduling depositions of 30(b)(6) witnesses 26 until they anticipate completing associated document production; and 27 4. Whether both defendants must be compelled to complete their respective 1 Regarding Anam’s self-imposed stay, as plaintiff notes, the “Federal Rules of Civil 2 Procedure do not provide for an automatic stay of discovery pending resolution of a 3 motion to dismiss.” In re Valence Tech. Sec. Litig., No. C 94-1542-SC,

1994 WL 758688

, 4 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 1994). Here, defendant Anam may not avoid its discovery 5 obligations merely because it filed a motion to dismiss. Anam has not moved for a stay 6 or a protective order to delay the discovery process. Though Anam objects to merits 7 discovery as “unnecessary, costly, and burdensome,” such protest falls short in light of its 8 participation in the case to date, including by answering the complaint (Dkt. 45) and its 9 agreement to the case schedule, including deadlines for discovery, dispositive motions, 10 and trial (Dkt. 44). Therefore, Anam’s objection to plaintiff’s discovery requests while the 11 motion to dismiss remains pending is OVERRULED. 12 Regarding Radysis’s delays in production, such delays appear based on the 13 difficulties inherent in the review and production of responsive documents in commercial 14 litigation. Radysis and its counsel report that they continue to review and produce 15 documents, apparently on a rolling basis. Plaintiff’s request that the court compel 16 outstanding production of documents without further delay is DENIED in light of Radysis’s 17 report of diligent engagement in the discovery process. Radysis’s request for the court to 18 preclude re-deposing witnesses based on supplemental production of documents, 19 however, is also DENIED because plaintiff’s diligence in conducting discovery need not 20 be restricted by Radysis’s delays, understandable as they may be. 21 Relatedly, while defendants’ attempts to hold off scheduling Rule 30(b)(6) 22 depositions until further production is completed appear partially based in the interests of 23 efficiency, plaintiff must be permitted to timely conduct discovery. Therefore, defendants’ 24 objections to plaintiffs’ attempts to schedule depositions are OVERRULED. The court 25 trusts that the parties will diligently work to schedule and complete necessary depositions 26 without abuse of the process and without court intervention. 27 // 1 The fifth issue identified in the parties’ letter brief is summarized as follows: 2 5. Whether the 10-deposition limit of Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i) should be increased to 17 3 witnesses to accommodate the several potential witnesses identified by 4 defendants. 5 Defendants’ objection to the preemptive expansion of the number of depositions is 6 SUSTAINED. As they note, no depositions have yet been taken, and it is thus premature 7 for plaintiff to seek additional depositions. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: October 11, 2022 10 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 11 United States District Judge

12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Reference

Status
Unknown