Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01920/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01920-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE INTUITIVE SURGICAL 

SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 5:13-cv-01920 EJD (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT NO. 2

Re: Dkt. No. 153

In this putative class action, plaintiffs sue Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (Intuitive) and several 

individual defendants for alleged securities fraud. Plaintiffs claim that defendants concealed 

safety defects in Intuitive’s da Vinci Surgical System and lied about the company’s business 

metrics and financial prospects.

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 2, the parties disagree whether defendants 

should be compelled to produce documents responsive to plaintiffs’ Request for Production No. 1 

(Third Set),1 which seeks: “Transcripts of all depositions of Intuitive Employees taken in the 

Derivative Actions since the date each such action was initiated, except for the depositions 

attended by Plaintiff’s counsel.” (Dkt. 153-1, DDJR No. 2, Ex. A at ECF p. 11). Although they 

did not define the term “Intuitive Employees,” plaintiffs now say that they contemplate that the 

 1 Defendants say that this actually is plaintiffs’ 55th request for production overall.

Case 5:13-cv-01920-EJD Document 175 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

term includes “current and former employees, and directors and officers, who are represented by 

defense counsel here.” (Dkt. 153, DDJR No. 2 at ECF p. 3). Defendants are of the mind that 

“Intuitive Employees” should not include former employees, third parties, or Board members. As 

for the referenced “Derivative Actions”: There is one derivative action pending in state court and 

a consolidated derivative suit pending here. The federal derivative action has been stayed in favor 

of the state court case.

Relevance is not seriously disputed. Defendants point out that the derivative actions are 

not identical to the instant securities suit. But, for purposes of resolving the instant discovery 

matter, this court finds that these cases are substantially similar. Indeed, in arguing for a stay of 

the federal derivative action, defendants asserted that they were “engaged in a two-front battle 

over the same allegations” as between the instant case and the derivative actions. (See Case No. 

5:14-cv-00515-EJD, Dkt. 94 at ECF p. 11). Courts have ordered production of deposition 

transcripts in litigation involving substantially similar claims and issues. See, e.g., Transamerica 

Life Ins. Co. v. Moore, 274 F.R.D. 602 (E.D. Ky. 2011) (granting motion to compel production of 

deposition transcripts of plaintiff’s employees who testified in similar litigation); Carter-Wallace, 

Inc. v. Hartz Mountain Indus., Inc., 92 F.R.D. 67, 70 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (ordering production of 

deposition transcripts from litigation “involv[ing] substantially similar allegations” that “occurred 

during overlapping periods of time.”); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. C11-1846 LHK 

(PSG), 2012 WL 1232267, at *5 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 12, 2012) (compelling production of transcripts 

from litigation having a “technological nexus” to the lawsuit); Waters v. Earthlink, Inc., No. 01-

11887-REK, 2004 WL 6000237, at *3 (D. Mass, Dec. 1, 2004) (concluding that the plaintiff met 

the “low relevance standard” for discovery of deposition transcripts from “a case involving similar 

claims and facts to the case at bar.”).

Defendants’ objection is largely one of timing. At the time this DDJR was filed, 

defendants argued that responsive deposition transcripts did not yet exist and that plaintiffs’

request for discovery therefore was premature. Plaintiffs, however, pointed out that depositions in 

the state court suit were scheduled to be completed by February 15, 2016. (See Case No. 5:14-cv00515-EJD, Dkt. 94 at ECF p. 9). Given the passage of time since then, this court assumes that 

Case 5:13-cv-01920-EJD Document 175 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

depositions in the state court case have been completed and that there now exist final transcripts 

falling within the scope of plaintiffs’ request. Defendants’ objections based on timing are 

overruled.

Defendants nevertheless contend that transcripts likely would be subject to a protective 

order that might be issued by the state court. On this record, however, it is unclear whether and to 

what extent the transcripts sought by plaintiffs would conflict (if at all) with any such protective 

order. Moreover, plaintiffs are requesting deposition transcripts for those witnesses that are 

represented by defense counsel. Generally, protective orders prohibit the receiving party’s use of 

another party’s discovery, not the producing party’s use or disclosure of its own information. See 

generally Carter-Wallace, Inc., 92 F.R.D. at 69 (ordering the production of deposition transcripts 

from another litigation, even though the depositions were subject to a protective order, where the 

protective order in question prohibited disclosure by the receiving party, and did not prohibit

disclosure by the party from whom disclosure was sought).

Based on the foregoing, this court is satisfied that plaintiffs’ request is sufficiently relevant 

and specific to require production, except to the extent defendants can show that the existence of 

another court’s protective order bars their production of transcripts to plaintiffs. Absent such a 

showing, defendants shall promptly produce the requested deposition transcripts of current and 

former Intuitive employees, and directors and officers, who are represented by defense counsel.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2016

______________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:13-cv-01920-EJD Document 175 Filed 09/27/16 Page 3 of 3