Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01346/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01346-12/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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EXPRESS DIAGNOSTICS INT’L, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARRY M. TYDING, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS ACTION

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-1346 JW (PVT)

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER;AND

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTION TO JOINDERS OF

DEFENDANTS BEENTJES, TYDINGS

AND KISERA IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION AND DENYING MOTION TO

STRIKE

On March 13, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective Order and Request for Stay

Pending Resolution of Location and PMKs for Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Express Diagnostics

International (“Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order”). The motion was continued to August 26,

2008, due to attorney William N. Woodson’s withdrawal as counsel for certain Defendants and

Judge Ware’s orders staying all pending filing deadlines first for 30 days and then to August 7, 2008

(based on Defendant Tyding’s heart surgery, and his critical and unstable health condition). On

August 7, 2008, Defendants Patrick Beentjes, Elizabeth Beentjes, and Twin Spirit, Inc. filed a

belated joinder in Defendant Amedica Biotech, Inc.’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. On August

15, 2008, Defendant Barry Tyding, proceeding in pro per, filed a belated opposition to Plaintiff’s

motion. On August 20, 2008, Plaintiff filed an “Objection to the Joinder of Defendants Beentjes,

Case 5:06-cv-01346-JW Document 235 Filed 08/22/08 Page 1 of 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 While the court expects the parties to be able to schedule the depositions without 1

assistance, in light of the antagonism between attorneys Strabala and Mendoza, the court prefers to be

available to immediately resolve any conflicts.

ORDER, page 2

Tydings and Kisera [Sic] in Opposition to Motion for Protective Order and Request to Strike.” In

addition to objecting to the belated filings, Plaintiff responded to those briefs on the merits. On

August 21, 2008, Defendants Amedica Biotech, Inc. And Jianfeng “Jeff” Chen filed a “Rejoinder to

Plaintiff’s Objection to Joinder.” The latter two documents filed by attorneys Mendoza and Strabala

are replete with obstructionist posturing, sarcasm and hyperbole which is unbecoming an officer of

the court. Based on the briefs and declarations submitted and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for protective order is DENIED,

conditioned on Defendants cooperating in developing a deposition schedule for all party depositions

to be conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area so as to minimize the number of trips each party or

their counsel must make. Counsel for the represented parties shall attend a deposition scheduling

conference in person in this court’s conference room, with the pro per parties participating either in

person or by telephone at their option. Counsel and the pro per parties shall promptly meet and

confer to select a day and time for the deposition scheduling conference. Counsel shall check with

this court’s courtroom deputy to ensure that Judge Trumbull will be available on the date selected.1

If the parties cannot agree on a day and time, then no later than September 2, 2008, each party shall

file a declaration setting forth all scheduling information for themselves and their counsel during the

months of September, October and November and the court will set the schedule as it sees fit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request that the court limit to two the number of

Rule 30(b)(6) designees it must produce is DENIED as unnecessary. Plaintiff erroneously assumes

that Rule 30(b)(6) requires it to designate the “persons most knowledgeable” about the topics

identified in the deposition notice. That is the California state rule. Rule 30(b)(6) requires only that:

“[t]he named organization must then designate one or more officers, directors, or

managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and

it may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify. A subpoena

must advise a nonparty organization of its duty to make this designation. The persons

designated must testify about information known or reasonably available to the

organization.” (Emphasis added.)

Thus, so long as the designated individual is adequately prepared to provide the information “known

Case 5:06-cv-01346-JW Document 235 Filed 08/22/08 Page 2 of 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

The Ninth Circuit, in dicta, has suggested that a corporation served with a Rule 30(b)(6) 2

notice must produce the “most qualified” person to testify. See Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain

Productions, 353 F3d 792, 798, fn. 4 (9 Cir. 2003). However, the Ninth Circuit did not explain what th

it meant by “most qualified,” and both Rule 30(b)(6) and numerous cases interpreting it have made clear

that it only requires a responding corporation to designate one or more individuals to testify on its behalf,

and to prepare those individuals to fully testify about each topic for which each has been designated to

testify. See, e.g., Marker v. Union Fidelity Life Insurance Co., 125 F.R.D. 121, 126 (M.D.N.C. 1989)

(responding corporation obligated to “prepare [one or more witnesses] so that they may give complete,

knowledgeable and binding answers on behalf of the corporation”). Once a designated witness has been

prepared to fully testify, that person is arguably the “most qualified,” even if he or she was not initially

the most knowledgeable. The fact that 30(b)(6) does not require production of the most

“knowledgeable” person is evinced both by the lack of any such requirement in the rule, and by the fact

that the rule requires the corporation to obtain consent to testify from individuals who are not officers,

directors, or managing agents. Thus, where the person most “knowledgeable” is not an officer, director,

or managing agent, a corporation cannot be compelled to produce that person for deposition if he or she

does not consent. See FED.R.CIV.PRO.30(b)(6) advisory committee notes (1970 amends.) (“an employee

or agent who has an independent or conflicting interest in the litigation–for example, in a personal injury

case–can refuse to testify on behalf of the organization”).

ORDER, page 3

or reasonably available to the organization” about a specified topic, he or she need not be the “person

most knowledgeable” about that topic. The decision regarding how many individuals to designate

and have prepare to fully testify on any given topic(s) is up to the party responding to the Rule

30(b)(6) deposition notice. See Marker v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 125 F.R.D. 121, 126 2

(M.D.N.C. 1989)) (noting that if the persons designated by the corporation do not possess personal

knowledge of the matters set out in the deposition notice, the corporation is obligated to prepare the

designees so that they may give knowledgeable and binding answers for the corporation).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection and request to strike the belated

filings by Defendants Patrick Beentjes, Elizabeth Beentjes, Twin Spirit, Inc. and Barry Tydings is

OVERRULED and DENIED. While the better practice would have been for these Defendants to

seek leave of court, under the circumstances of this case such leave would have been granted. Had

Plaintiff then wished to file a further reply, leave to do so would also be granted. And, in fact,

Plaintiff did include further reply arguments in her objection and request to strike. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall refrain from including any further

inflamatory language in future briefs and declarations submitted in connection with any discovery

disputes. The court expects its officers to conduct themselves with civility and to treat each other

with courtesy. The personal animosity attorneys Strabala and Mendoza have displayed toward each

other has no place in court filings.

Case 5:06-cv-01346-JW Document 235 Filed 08/22/08 Page 3 of 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

ORDER, page 4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Defendant Amedica Biotech, Inc. shall

promptly notify the Defendants representing themselves in pro per of the contents of this order and

that the hearing set for August 26, 2008 is off calendar.

Dated: 8/22/08

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-01346-JW Document 235 Filed 08/22/08 Page 4 of 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

ORDER, page 5

Counsel automatically notified of this filing via the court’ s Electronic Case Filing system.

copies mailed on to:

Barry M. Tydings

723 Casino Center Blvd., #2

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Merina T. Kisera

723 Casino Center Blvd. #2

Las Vegas, NV 89101 

 _______________________________

 CORINNE LEW

 Courtroom Deputy 

Case 5:06-cv-01346-JW Document 235 Filed 08/22/08 Page 5 of 5