Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02140/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02140-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

LA BOUTIQUE DU SOFTWARETECH 

INC., a Canadian Corporation doing business 

as SOFTWARE TECH and SOFTWARE 

TECH STORE; FUTUR-SOFT 

SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a New 

York Corporation; PIERRE FRANCIS, an 

Individual; and DOES 3-10, Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-02140-RMW (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REPORT NO. 1

Re: Dkt. No. 94

Plaintiff Adobe Systems, Incorporated (Adobe) filed this lawsuit, alleging that defendants

made unauthorized sales of Adobe software. In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 1,1

Adobe says that between June and August 2015, plaintiff served notices for the depositions of 

defendants, Osama Shamma (identified as defendants’ sole employee who is primarily responsible 

for defendants’ daily operations), and Delilah Kanou (identified as defendant Pierre Francis’ wife, 

the corporate defendants’ officer, and the point of contact for defendant Software Tech). 

 

1 DDJR No. 1 is not really a “joint” report because it was unilaterally filed by Adobe. This court 

is told that, despite plaintiff’s repeated efforts, defendants refused to meet-and-confer or to

participate in the preparation of the report. This court has received no response to Adobe’s 

discovery report.

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 95 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 5
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

According to Adobe, defendants (1) refused to cooperate in Adobe’s attempts to schedule (and 

reschedule) the subject depositions; (2) failed to appear for their own depositions; and (3) refused 

to produce Shamma or Kanou for examination. Although defendants currently do not have an 

attorney, plaintiff noticed the subject depositions and attempted to schedule them at a time when 

all defendants were still represented by counsel. Moreover, even after defense counsel withdrew, 

this court is told that defendants either refused or ignored plaintiff’s attempts to reschedule the 

examinations.

Plaintiff now asks for what amounts to a terminating sanction, i.e., an order striking

defendants’ answers for their failure to appear for deposition. Alternatively, plaintiff requests an 

order compelling defendants, Shamma, and Kanou to appear for deposition by a date certain. 

Adobe previously was willing to proceed with the depositions in Montreal; however, the 

deponents having flouted prior efforts to secure those depositions, Adobe now asks that the subject 

examinations be ordered to take place in the United States. Additionally, Adobe seeks an award of 

$3,326.25 for reasonable fees and costs it says it incurred in the pursuit of these depositions. The 

matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon 

consideration of DDJR No. 1, Adobe’s request for sanctions is granted in part as follows:

If a party fails to appear for a properly noticed deposition, the court may sanction that party 

by, among other things, striking its pleadings in whole or in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d); 

37(b)(2)(A)(iii).2 Such sanctions are appropriate, even in the absence of a prior court order. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37(d); Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1996). “Instead of or 

in addition to these sanctions, the court must require the party failing to act, the attorney advising 

that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, 

unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses 

unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3).

Before ordering a terminating sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) for failure to appear at a 

 

2 Other available sanctions for a party’s failure to appear for deposition include orders deeming 

certain facts established; prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated 

claims or defenses or from introducing certain matters into evidence; and rendering default 

judgment against the disobedient party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3); 37(b)(2)(A).

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 95 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 5
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

deposition, the court must balance five factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution 

of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its dockets, (3) the risk of prejudice to the party 

seeking sanctions, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the 

availability of less drastic sanctions. Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir.1994) 

(citing Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir.1990)). The first two factors weigh in 

favor of the imposition of terminating sanctions, while the fourth factor cuts against it. “Thus the 

key factors are prejudice and the availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer, 910 F.2d at 656.

This court finds that striking defendants’ answers might well be justified. Plaintiff is 

entitled to obtain testimony on matters pertinent to this lawsuit, and the record presented indicates 

that each of the deponents likely has information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants flatly refused to appear and to produce 

witnesses for the noticed examinations. They also ignored plaintiff’s repeated efforts to schedule 

(and reschedule) the depositions.

Nevertheless, although fact discovery closed on October 2, 2015, there is reasonable time 

in the case schedule to accommodate the taking of these depositions without disrupting the 

remainder of the presiding judge’s schedule. So, rather than strike defendants’ pleadings at this 

time, this court grants plaintiff’s alternate request for an order requiring the deponents to appear 

for deposition in the United States. No later than November 16, 2015, defendants shall appear in 

the United States for their respective depositions and shall also produce Shamma and Kanou for 

examination here. Defendants shall cooperate with plaintiff’s counsel in scheduling these

examinations.

The denial of plaintiff’s request for an order striking defendants’ pleadings is without 

prejudice to Adobe to renew that request should defendants again fail to cooperate in the 

scheduling of the subject depositions, fail to appear for examination, or fail to produce Shamma 

and Kanou for deposition.

This court also grants Adobe’s request for reasonable fees and costs incurred in pursuing 

these depositions. No later than October 23, 2015, Adobe shall submit evidence supporting the 

claimed sum of $3,326.25. Should defendant Francis choose to respond to that supplemental 

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 95 Filed 10/16/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

filing, he must file his response by October 30, 2015. If no response is filed by that date, then the 

matter of Adobe’s requested monetary sanctions will be deemed submitted without further hearing 

or briefing unless otherwise ordered by this court.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 95 Filed 10/16/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

5:14-cv-02140-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Christopher Quang Pham cpham@johnsonpham.com, cbrannan@johnsonpham.com, 

jvener@johnsonpham.com, mchaney@johnsonpham.com, ndrey@johnsonpham.com, 

ppham@johnsonpham.com

Hung Q Pham ppham@johnsonpham.com

Nicole L Drey ndrey@johnsonpham.com

5:14-cv-02140-RMW Notice sent by U.S. Mail to:

La Boutique du Softwaretech Inc.

dba Software Tech and Software Tech Store

7415 Gouin Boulevard West

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4K 1B8

Futur-Soft Solutions Corporation

7415 Gouin Boulevard West

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4K 1B8

Pierre Francis

7415 Gouin Boulevard West

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4K 1B8

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 95 Filed 10/16/15 Page 5 of 5