Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05122/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05122-6/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The general factual background of this action has been described in a prior order and will

not be repeated here.

1

*E-FILED 11/15/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BERCUT-VANDERVOORT & CO., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

MAISON TARRIDE LEDROIT & CIE,

Defendant. /

NO. C 05-5122 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Maison Tarride Ledroit & Cie (“MTL”) seeks a protective order relieving it from

complying with a deposition notice under Rule 30 (b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

setting the place of deposition in California. MTL argues that the deposition should go forward

only in France, at its principal place of business. Because plaintiff Bercut-Vandervoort & Co.

(“BVC”) has failed to show that sufficient reasons exist to depart from the ordinary rule that 30 (b)

(6) depositions are to be taken where the party’s place of business is located, the motion will be

granted.

 II. BACKGROUND1

On September 6, 2006, BVC served a deposition notice on MTL under Rule 30 (b) (6)

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 60 Filed 11/15/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

 MTL faults BVC for asserting that there exists a “Ninth Circuit test” for evaluating

disputes like this. MTL is correct that BVC cited only cases from only other districts within the

Ninth Circuit, but BVC did not represent that there was controlling appellate precedent. In any

2

specifying thirty-seven topics of inquiry. The notice called for the deposition to take place at the

offices of BVC’s counsel in San Francisco. BVC believes that MTL ultimately will designate a

single individual to testify on all topics–its “managing director,” Philippe de Boisredon. MTL states

that although it has not yet “determined precisely” which or how many of its employees it will

designate to testify, it “expects to produce Mr. de Boisredon and at least one other witness.”

III. DISCUSSION

The parties vigorously dispute the legal standards governing controversies over the location

of Rule 30 (b) (6) depositions, but in actuality there is no conflict between the cases that each side

cites. MTL is correct that a 30 (b) (6) deposition presumptively should take place at or near the

party’s principal place of business; the case on which BVC places most emphasis agrees:

The deposition of a corporation by its agents and officers should ordinarily be

taken at its principal place of business. 

Cadent Ltd. v. 3M Unitek Corporation, 232 F.R.D. 625, 628 (C.D. Cal 2005) (quoting Wright,

Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2112 at 84 (1994 rev.)). 

Here, there is no dispute that MTL’s principal place of business is Bordeaux, France. 

Although BVC makes much of the fact that MTL is “actively doing business in the United States,”

that serves only to support jurisdiction over MTL in this action; BVC cannot and does not contend

that San Francisco is MTL’s “principal place of business” for purposes of evaluating where its

deposition should take place.

Rather, BVC relies on the recognition in case law that various factors can “dissipate the

presumption” that a corporate deposition should take place near that corporation’s principal place of

business and thereby “persuade the Court to require the deposition to be conducted in the forum

district or some other place.” Cadent, 232 F.R.D. at 628 -29.2

 As listed by the Cadent court, 

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 60 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

event, while courts in numerous jurisdictions have reached different results based on the factual

circumstances presented, no conflict in the law is apparent. MTL is correct that there is a “general

rule” and BVC is correct that some circumstances may warrant a departure from that rule.

3

 At the hearing, MTL represented that it expects to designate at least one witness other than

Mr. de Boisredon to testify on topics as to which Mr. de Boisredon has little day-to-day

involvement, and that the only remaining uncertainty is which MTL employee or employees will be

so designated. As discussed at the hearing, MTL shall make that determination and disclose its

designation to BVC within one week of the date of this order.

3

[t]hese factors include location of counsel for the parties in the forum district, the

number of corporate representatives a party is seeking to depose, the likelihood of

significant discovery disputes arising which would necessitate resolution by the

forum court; whether the persons sought to be deposed often engage in travel for

business purposes; and the equities with regard to the nature of the claim and the

parties’ relationship.

232 F.R.D. at 629 (citations omitted).

 In this case, the only factor that might weigh significantly in favor of requiring the deposition

to take place here is the possibility that there will be disputes requiring court intervention. To

presume, however, that there is a likelihood of such disputes would not give sufficient credit to the

professionalism of counsel or to the importance the Court attaches to the obligations parties have to

attempt to resolve disputes between themselves whenever possible.

It is true that counsel of record for both sides are located in this forum. As MTL points out,

however, it would hardly be fair to use the fact that it responded to BVC’s lawsuit by hiring local 

counsel as a factor favoring a 30 (b) (6) deposition in this district. As to the frequency with which

MTL’s employees “often engage in travel for business purposes,” MTL has adequately shown that

Mr. de Boisredon would have to make an unscheduled trip to this venue to be deposed, regardless of

how frequently he otherwise travels to this country. Additionally, even though MTL has not firmly

committed to the position that it will need to designate another deponent in addition to Mr. de

Boisredon, it has shown that likely will be the case and that no such designee otherwise regularly

travels here.3

More fundamentally, the overall equities simply do not favor a departure from the ordinary

rule. As MTL points out, in Cadent, the foreign party opposing a deposition in the forum was the

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 60 Filed 11/15/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

 Other factual distinctions exist. For example, the Cadent court noted, “Israel may be a

dangerous place to hold the depositions.” 232 F.R.D. at 630. Even though most places in the world

are perhaps now perceived as “dangerous,” there is no suggestion that Bordeaux is any more

dangerous than San Francisco.

ORDER 

C 05-5122 JF (RS) 

4

plaintiff who had chosen to bring suit in the forum.4 In contrast, here MTL is a defendant who may

be subject to personal jurisdiction in this forum as a result of its business activities, but did not

choose to sue here. Furthermore, MTL has submitted specific, factual declarations regarding the

size and nature of its operations, and the burden it would suffer if one or more of its employees were

required to travel to this forum for deposition. Cf. Cadent, 232 F.R.D. at 629 (“neither party has

provided the Court with declarations from its corporate officers attesting to either the expense or

undue burden.”) Finally, MTL has stipulated that the deposition in France may be conducted under

the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without resort to the Hague Convention.

Under these circumstances and on this record, MTL has adequately established good cause for

issuance of a protective order.

IV. CONCLUSION

The motion for a protective order is granted. Any Rule 30 (b) (6) depositions of MTL shall

take place at or near its place of business in Bordeaux, France.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 60 Filed 11/15/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER 

C 05-5122 JF (RS) 

5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Lila Inayat Bailey lbailey@perkinscoie.com

Anne Elizabeth Kearns akearns@kksrr.com, alau@kksrr.com

Kenneth E. Keller kkeller@kksrr.com, alau@kksrr.com

Michael H. Rubin mrubin@perkinscoie.com, sandrews@perkinscoie.com

Kenneth B. Wilson kwilson@perkinscoie.com, eeberline@perkinscoie.com;

sshanberg@perkinscoie.com; wriggs@perkinscoie.com; lbailey@perkinscoie.com;

dhellmoldt@perkinscoie.com; mrubin@perkinscoie.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 11/15/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 60 Filed 11/15/06 Page 5 of 5