Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05666/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05666-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

ORDER — No. 14-cv-05666-LB

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 Francisco Division

GOES INTERNATIONAL, AB,

Plaintiff,

v.

DODUR LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05666-LB 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

COMPEL

Re: ECF No. 104

INTRODUCTION

This is a copyright-infringement suit.1 Before the court is plaintiff Goes International, AB’s 

motion to compel the defendant, Dodur, Ltd., a Chinese software developer, to testify at a 

deposition in San Francisco, and to produce documents in connection with that deposition.2The 

court has already ordered Dodur to produce the documents in question.3 Dodur has not responded 

to Goes’ motion. Both parties have consented to magistrate jurisdiction.4The court held a hearing 

on this motion on January 12, 2017. It now grants Goes’ motion to compel. The court orders 

 

1

See generally (1st Am. Compl. – ECF No. 1). Record citations refer to material contained in the 

Electronic Case File (―ECF‖); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of 

documents.

2 Motion – ECF No. 104.

3 ECF No. 84.

4 ECF Nos. 8, 22; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Case 3:14-cv-05666-LB Document 109 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 6
ORDER — No. 14-cv-05666-LB 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

Dodur: 1) to name and send a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative to be deposed on February 

20, 2017 in San Francisco in accordance with Goes’ deposition notice; 2) to produce the requested 

documents by February 6, 2017; and 3) to name a new counsel to represent it in this case by 

February 6, 2017.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The following events seem the most relevant to this discussion.5 Dodur participated actively in 

the earlier stages of this case. It answered the complaint.6It moved to dismiss this suit for lack of 

personal jurisdiction.7It opposed Goes’ motion to compel the production of documents related to 

damages.8(The court granted that motion — but set no deadline for the production.9) Its lawyers 

then moved to withdraw, citing Dodur’s non-payment of fees.10 On February 22, 2016, the court 

granted that motion; the court allowed Dodur’s lawyers to withdraw, but ordered them to 

―continue to serve on Dodur all papers from the plaintiff and the court until Dodur files a 

substitution of counsel.‖11 Dodur has not yet named a new lawyer. Nor has it produced any 

documents.12

The plaintiff now moves the court to do two things. First, to order that Dodur — which, again, 

is a Chinese corporation — produce a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative for deposition in San 

Francisco on February 20, 2017.13 Second, to order that Dodur produce, by February 6, 2017, ―all 

 

5

Fuller descriptions of this case appear in the court’s previous orders: one on the defendants’ motion 

to dismiss (ECF No. 51 at 1–9) and one on the plaintiff’s earlier motion to compel (ECF No. 84 at 1–

3).

6 ECF No. 52.

7 ECF Nos. 34, 39. The court denied Dodur’s jurisdictional motion but granted that of its two former 

co-defendants. (ECF No. 51.) Which is to say, the court held that it could exercise personal jurisdiction 

over Dodur. (Id.)

8

See ECF Nos. 69, 74–76, 82.

9 ECF No. 84.

10 ECF No. 85.

11 ECF No. 89 at 3.

12 Lesowitz Decl. – ECF No. 104-1 at 2 (¶ 3).

13 See Mot. – ECF No. 104 at 2.

Case 3:14-cv-05666-LB Document 109 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 6
ORDER — No. 14-cv-05666-LB 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

documents that it is required to produce‖; this includes the damages-related material that the court 

earlier ordered Dodur to provide to Goes.14 Perhaps more exactly, Goes asks that Dodur be made 

to produce ―all documents that it previously agreed to produce and that the Court found that Dodur 

must produce.‖15 And it asks that all such material be produced ―no later than two weeks‖ before 

the deposition.16

By declaration, Goes states that it attached a notice of deposition to a letter (in both English 

and Mandarin Chinese) that it emailed on December 1, 2016 to Dodur’s CEO.17 Goes has not 

provided the court with the actual deposition notice. Its cover letter to Dodur, however, states the 

basic point of the deposition (to produce a corporate representative to testify), and names the city 

and proposed date for the deposition (while leaving open the chance that the parties might agree to 

another ―mutually convenient time‖).18 The letter reminded Dodur of the court’s documentproduction order, as well, and asked Dodur to produce those documents two weeks before any 

deposition of a Dodur representative.19 Finally, Goes warned Dodur that if it did not agree to the 

deposition by December 7, 2016, Goes would move to compel the deposition and related 

production.20

ANALYSIS

1. The Motion to Compel

Goes’ motion is well grounded in all respects. The plaintiff correctly argues that this court can 

compel a foreign-national defendant, like Dodur, over whom it has personal jurisdiction, to attend 

a deposition in the United States. Strictly speaking, the deposition notice itself suffices to compel 

 

14 Id. at 6–7.

15 Id. at 6.

16 Id.

17 Lesowitz Decl. – ECF No. 104-1 at 2 (¶ 2), 4–7 (letters). The letter’s recipient is a Mr. Wang Li 

Ming, whom Dodur’s former lawyers described as Dodur’s ―CEO.‖ See (Kao Decl. – ECF No. 85-1 at 

2 [¶ 4]).

18 Id. at 4.

19 Id. at 5.

20 Id. at 4–5.

Case 3:14-cv-05666-LB Document 109 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 6
ORDER — No. 14-cv-05666-LB 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

such a deposition. See, e.g., Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994) (―[T]here 

was no abuse of discretion in ordering the depositions [of Hong Kong corporations] to occur in 

San Francisco.‖); Roberts v. Heim, 130 F.R.D. 430, 437, 438–39 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (ordering Swiss 

litigant to appear for deposition in San Francisco); Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. 

United States Dist. Ct., 482 U.S. 522, 533–46 (1987) (federal procedural rules and Hague 

Convention are alternate means of obtaining discovery from foreign-national litigants); W. 

Schwarzer et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶¶ 11:1281 (2016) 

(―Foreign nationals . . . who are parties to an action are subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction 

and may be deposed wherever the court directs.‖) (citing GTE Prods. Corp. v. Gee, 115 F.R.D. 67, 

68–69 (D. Mass. 1987) (notice itself effective)). And, again, the court has already ordered Dodur 

to produce the documents that Goes seeks in connection with the deposition.21

2. Order to Show Cause — Dodur Must Name New Counsel

A corporation — indeed, any business entity — can appear in federal court only through an 

attorney. Pro se corporate representation is not allowed. E.g., Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 

U.S. 194, 202 (1993); United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 

1993); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) (―A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other 

such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court.‖).

This court granted Dodur’s former lawyers’ motion to withdraw on February 22, 2016.22

Counsel had informed Dodur of its intent to withdraw and, apparently in view of the company’s 

inability to pay its lawyers, Dodur ―consented to the withdrawal.‖23 The lawyers nonetheless filed 

one last case-management statement, and appeared at a case-management conference, on Dodur’s 

behalf.24 The court ordered Dodur’s former attorneys to continue serving Dodur with filings in this 

 

21 ECF No. 84.

22 ECF No. 89.

23 Kao Decl. – ECF No. 85-1 at 2 (¶¶ 3–4).

24 ECF Nos. 93, 95.

Case 3:14-cv-05666-LB Document 109 Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 6
ORDER — No. 14-cv-05666-LB 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

suit until Dodur filed a substitution of counsel.25 The latter directive of course should have entailed 

sending Dodur a copy of the withdrawal order.

That was almost a year ago. Dodur has not yet filed a substitution of counsel. Nor has it 

otherwise indicated to the court — or, for all that the record shows, to the plaintiff — what it 

intends to do in this respect. A corporate defendant who fails to substitute counsel after one has 

withdrawn will eventually find itself subject to default judgment. See, e.g., Solaria Corp. v. T.S. 

Energie e Risorse, S.R.I., 2014 WL 7205114, *1–2, *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2014) (Conti, J.) 

(granting Rule 55 default judgment against corporate defendant who failed to substitute counsel 

for four-and-a-half months after previous lawyers withdrew); City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn 

Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 128–33 (2nd Cir. 2011) (affirming default judgment against LLC that 

―withdrew its counsel without retaining a substitute‖); cf., e.g., Ringgold Corp. v. Worrall, 880 

F.2d 1138, 1141 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming default judgment on counterclaims where plaintiff did 

not attend pretrial conferences and ―fail[ed] to attend‖ the first day of trial).26

* * *

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the court grants Goes’ motion to compel. The court orders Dodur to do the 

following:

1. Name a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative and make that person available to 

testify at a deposition in San Francisco on February 20, 2016, in compliance with 

Goes’ deposition notice.

2. Produce all appropriate documents — those that it agreed to produce, those that the 

court ordered it to produce in February 2016, and any others that respond to Goes’ 

requests (and that are otherwise discoverable) — and to ensure that Goes receives 

this material by February 6, 2016.

3. File a substitution of counsel in this lawsuit by February 6, 2016.

In case it proves procedurally necessary to some later act of enforcement, the court alternately 

couches the last item — compelling Dodur to name new counsel — as an order to show cause why 

 

25 ECF No. at 89 at 3.

26 In Solaria, supra, Judge Conti originally gave the corporate defendant 30 days in which to find and 

name new counsel. Solaria Corporation, 2014 WL 7205114 at *1.

Case 3:14-cv-05666-LB Document 109 Filed 01/12/17 Page 5 of 6
ORDER — No. 14-cv-05666-LB 6

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 has not yet substituted in a new attorney to represent it in this lawsuit. The court directs Goes to 

serve Dodur with a copy of this order.

This disposes of ECF No. 104.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2017

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05666-LB Document 109 Filed 01/12/17 Page 6 of 6