Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-md-02420/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-md-02420-103/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

IN RE:

LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION

Case No. 13-md-02420-YGR (DMR)

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER RE DEPOSITION LIMITS

Re: Dkt. No. 1195

The parties filed a joint discovery letter brief in which Defendants move to amend a 

provision of the parties’ Discovery and Deposition Protocol regarding deposition time limits. 

[Docket No. 1195 (Joint Letter).] This matter is appropriate for determination without oral 

argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 3, 2014, the undersigned approved the parties’ stipulated Deposition 

Protocol. [Docket No. 593 (the “original protocol”).] In October 2015, the parties jointly moved 

the court to adopt a “Discovery and Deposition Protocol,” revised by the parties to account for the 

entry of the Direct Action Plaintiffs (“DAPs”) into the litigation. [See Docket No. 882-1 (the 

“revised protocol”).] In the revised protocol, the parties agreed to a longer presumptive length for

non-30(b)(6) depositions. The original protocol provided that the Class Plaintiffs, (meaning the 

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (“DPPs”) and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“IPPs”)), “shall 

presumptively have 7 hours to depose each non-30(b)(6) witness,” subject to enlargement for

translated depositions. Original Protocol § II.E. The revised protocol sets forth an expanded time 

limit for depositions, as follows:

Plaintiffs shall presumptively have 7 hours to depose each non30(b)(6) witness. In the event the same witness is noticed by the 

Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs or Indirect Purchaser Class 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1224 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiffs and counsel for any Direct Action Plaintiff, the deposition 

will be limited to 11 hours of deposition, consecutive when 

reasonably practicable, with 7 hours allocated to the Direct/Indirect 

Purchaser Plaintiffs and 4 hours allocated to the Direct Action 

Plaintiffs. . . . Provided, however, that (i) any plaintiff may, in their 

sole discretion, cede their allocated deposition time to any other 

plaintiff; and (ii) counsel for the Direct Action Plaintiffs may take 

the lead in a deposition. The parties shall meet and confer in good 

faith to discuss their anticipated examination time in advance of any 

scheduled deposition, taking into account whether a witness is being 

noticed as an individual fact witness only or as both a 30(b)(6) 

witness and an individual fact witness. . . . All of these time limits 

are subject to the provisions below expanding time in the case of 

translated depositions.

Proposed Revised Protocol at § II.E. With respect to translated depositions, the parties agreed that 

“[t]o the extent an interpreter is used for all or nearly all of the deposition, the time limits set forth 

in Paragraph . . . II.E above shall be doubled.” Id. at ¶ IV.D. Therefore, under the revised 

protocol, the DPPs, IPPs, and DAPs collectively may depose a non-30(b)(6) witness for up to 

eleven hours total, or for up to 22 hours in the case of a translated deposition. The revised 

protocol stipulates that “[t]his Deposition and Discovery Protocol Order may be modified only by 

stipulation and order, or by order of the Magistrate or the Court for good cause shown.” Id. at ¶ 

XIII. The court entered the parties’ revised protocol without amendment on October 19, 2015. 

[Docket No. 905.] 

Defendants now seek to modify the revised protocol by eliminating the additional four 

hours of deposition time to which they agreed. Thus, Defendants now propose that DPPs, IPPs, 

and DAPs return to the original protocol, in which all Plaintiffs, including the DAPs, “shall 

presumptively have a combined 7 hours to depose each non-30(b)(6) witness” for non-translated 

depositions, and 14 hours for translated depositions in the event that the same witness is noticed 

by DPPs or IPPs and any DAP. Joint Letter at 1. The DPPs, IPPs, and DAPs oppose the proposed 

revision.

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Section XIII of the revised protocol, Defendants must show “good cause” for 

the proposed modification. Defendants argue that good cause supports the change because 

permitting Plaintiffs to depose non-30(b)(6) witnesses for more than seven hours (or 14 translated 

hours) results in excessive burden and expense to all parties without adding commensurate value 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1224 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 4
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

to the litigation. According to Defendants, the parties negotiated the revised protocol to 

“accommodate DAPs’ claims that they had unique issues.” Citing examples from a handful of 

depositions, Defendants complain that instead of using their allotted four hours for questions

related to their unique issues, the DAPs have instead been ceding the majority of their time to the 

Class Plaintiffs, resulting in “duplicative questioning, excessive burden, and overall inefficiency.” 

Joint Letter at 1.

Defendants also argue that the excess deposition time results in considerable expense. 

According to Defendants, the parties routinely have at least fifteen attorneys present at each 

deposition, plus a court reporter, videographer, official translator, and two check translators. They 

estimate that each hour of deposition costs at least $7,500, meaning that in the case of translated 

depositions, a third day increases costs by at least $60,000, not including travel and translator 

costs. Joint Letter at 3. A third day also “taxes the stamina of the witnesses,” particularly those 

who require translators. Id.

Defendants’ arguments are not persuasive. First and foremost, the parties negotiated the 

revised protocol and explicitly agreed that “any plaintiff may, in their sole discretion, cede their 

allocated deposition time to any other plaintiff.” There was no corresponding limitation on the 

subject matter of any questioning that exceeded the original seven hours. Therefore, the revised 

protocol contains no support for Defendants’ claim that the DAPs must use their deposition time 

solely for questioning related to their “unique issues.” Defendants’ dissatisfaction with the way 

the DAPs have used or ceded their allotted deposition time does not constitute good cause for 

amending the provision to revert to the original time limits. Moreover, this case involves 

allegations of a decade-long global conspiracy, and the Class Plaintiffs and the DAPs note that 

Defendants have produced 1.95 million documents to date. Therefore, the court cannot say that 

the four additional hours to which Defendants agreed is excessive, unreasonable, or unduly 

burdensome or expensive. The Class Plaintiffs and the DAPs note that other similar antitrust 

MDLs in the Northern District have deposition protocols in place that provide for at least 11 total 

hours of questioning by the class and direct action plaintiffs. Joint Letter at 5. 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1224 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 4
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

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to amend the revised protocol is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1224 Filed 04/27/16 Page 4 of 4