Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01042/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01042-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

ACSEL HEALTH, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CAMPBELL ALLIANCE GROUP, INC., 

 Defendant. 

Case Nos.: 16-mc-80119 YGR 

(Related Case: 16-cv-01042 YGR) 

ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH

Re: Dkt. No. 2 

On April 11, 2016, the Court ordered jurisdictional discovery in Case Number 16-cv-1042 

(the “related case”) to ascertain the principal place of business of defendant for jurisdictional 

purposes. (Related Case Dkt. No. 33.) Defendant’s parent company, inVentiv Health, Inc., now 

moves to quash a deposition subpoena served by plaintiff on inVentiv’s chairman and CEO Michael 

Bell. (Dkt. No. 2, “Mtn.” at 2.) Defendant, inVentiv, and Bell apparently take the position that the 

deposition of Bell is outside the scope of the Court’s order for jurisdictional discovery because 

neither Bell nor inVentiv are parties to the related case. The Court disagrees. Deposition testimony 

of defendant’s acting president indicates that Bell has unique, first-hand knowledge of the direction, 

control, and coordination of defendant. (See Dkt. No. 47-1.) 

Accordingly, Bell shall submit to a deposition of no more than three (3) hours in the city in 

which he is located no later than June 10, 2016. However, in light of the fact that the discovery is 

being afforded to support a motion for remand, the Court will give defendant the following option. If 

Bell does not submit, the Court will immediately remand the case given defendant’s failure to provide 

sufficient access to its officers when defendant is the party attempting to invoke the jurisdiction of 

this Court. Based on the current record defendant has not met its burden and remand would be 

appropriate. Defendant shall advise the Court of its decision by the close of business on Monday, 

June 6, 2016. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 2. 

Case 4:16-cv-01042-YGR Document 49 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 2
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

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 3, 2016 ____________________________________

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:16-cv-01042-YGR Document 49 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 2