Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02754/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02754-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USE TECHNO CORPORTATION AND

FUTOSHI MATSUYAMA,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

KENKO USA, INC., et.al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-06-02754 EDL

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

TO PREVENT THE KAWABATA

DEPOSITION

Defendants filed this motion for a protective order seeking to prevent the deposition of

Yoshihiro Kawabata, arguing that Mr. Kawabata, who lives and works in Japan, is not a party to this

litigation, nor is he an employee, officer, director or managing agent of a party to this litigation, and

so he cannot be compelled to appear for a deposition pursuant to a deposition notice issued pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. Instead, Defendants argue that Mr. Kawabata is affiliated

with Kenko Corporation, which is not a defendant in this case, and that Plaintiff must serve Mr.

Kawabata with a subpoena for his deposition pursuant to the Hague Convention or other applicable

treaty. Plaintiffs oppose this motion. Because this matter was appropriate for decision without oral

argument, the Court vacated the August 21, 2007 hearing. 

On May 25, 2007, Plaintiffs noticed Mr. Kawabata’s deposition for June 19, 2007. See

Declaration of Lael Andara Ex. E. Prior to issuing this notice, Plaintiffs attempted to obtain

available dates for the deposition from Defendants. See, e.g., Andara Decl. Ex. C, D. Defendants

indicated that they were checking on available dates. See, e.g., Andara Decl. Ex. B. It appears that

only after the deposition notice was served did Defendants state their position that Mr. Kawabata

Case 3:06-cv-02754-EDL Document 145 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 4
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

would not be subject to a Rule 30 deposition notice because he was not a party, nor an employee,

officer, director or managing agent of a party. After learning that Mr. Kawabata would not appear

for the deposition, Plaintiffs took the deposition off calendar. See Declaration of Amy Gruber Ex. J. 

On June 21, 2007, Plaintiffs renoticed Mr. Kawabata’s deposition for July 10, 2007. See Andara

Decl. Ex. V. On July 9, 2007, Defendants filed this motion. 

In their opposition, Plaintiffs argue that a Rule 30 deposition notice is appropriate because

Mr. Kawabata is a managing agent of Defendants in this case. Several factors guide the Court’s

determination of whether a person is a managing agent:

1. whether the individual is invested with general powers allowing him to

exercise judgment and discretion in corporate matters;

2. whether the individual can be relied upon to give testimony, at his

employer’s request, in response to the demand of the examining party;

3. whether any person or persons are employed by the corporate employer in

positions of higher authority than the individual designated in the area

regarding which information is sought by the examination; 

4. the general responsibilities of the individual “respecting the matters

involved in the litigation;” and 

5. whether the individual can be expected to identify with the interests of the

corporation.

Sugarhill Records, Inc. v. Motown Record Corp., 105 F.R.D. 166, 170 (S.D. N.Y. 1985);see also

United States v. Afram Lines (USA), Ltd., 159 F.R.D. 408, 413 (S.D. N.Y. 1994). The party

seeking the deposition bears the burden of providing evidence that the proposed deponent is a

managing agent. Id. This is a fact-intensive inquiry and courts resolve close questions of a

deponent’s status in favor of the examining party. Id. at 171; Afram, 159 F.R.D. at 413 (“Thus, it

appears that the examining party has the burden of providing enough evidence to show that there is

at least a close question whether the proposed deponent is a managing agent.”). However, the

balance in favor of the examining party is less strong “where the proposed deponent is not an

employee of the opponent, and may, in fact, be beyond its control.” Afram Lines, 159 F.R.D. at 413. 

On balance, Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing at a minimum a close question,

which is resolved in their favor, as to whether Mr. Kawabata is a managing agent of one or more

Defendants for purposes of service of a deposition notice, and that he is not beyond Defendants’

control. Specifically, documents produced in discovery demonstrate Mr. Kawabata’s involvement

Case 3:06-cv-02754-EDL Document 145 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

in and ability to exercise judgment with respect to corporate matters of the Defendants in this case. 

See, e.g., Andara Decl. Ex. P (fax from Defendant Soft-Gel to Mr. Kawabata asking him to approve

the formula in a product description for Glucosol); Ex. K (e-mail messages to Mr. Kawabata seeking

his help with the substance of the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant Soft-Gel and Kenko

Corporation). More telling is the deposition testimony of Mr. Tsuchibe, who is the President of

Kenko Corporation in Japan and an officer of Defendant Kenko USA, regarding Mr. Kawabata’s

authority:

I’m organizing so many companies, I’m not involved in this kind of thing my

personally, and Mr. Kawabata in charge. So I think Kawabata present to me,

then he also mentioning in this letter. So I suppose whatever he made, Kawabata

made, you know, on my behalf, you know. 

Andara Decl. Ex. I (emphasis added). Given the control exercised by Mr. Kawabata as reflected in

Mr. Tsuchibe’s deposition testimony and in the documents, Mr. Kawabata can be expected to

identify with the interests of the Defendant corporations. Moreover, taken as a whole, the evidence

shows that Mr. Kawabata had important responsibilities with respect to the subject matter of this

litigation. 

Defendants’ representation to Plaintiffs that they would look into available dates for Mr.

Kawabata’s deposition demonstrates that Defendants have control over Mr. Kawabata. And

Defendants did not provide any declaration with this motion showing that they do not have control

over him or that he has refused to be deposed. It was reasonable for Plaintiffs to rely on Defendants’

representation and proceed with a deposition notice. Only after Plaintiffs served the deposition

notice did Defendants raise the issue of Mr. Kawabata’s relationship with the Defendants in this

case. In addition, the fact that Defendants brought this motion seeking to prevent Mr. Kawabata’s

deposition illustrates the close connection between Mr. Kawabata and Defendants. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02754-EDL Document 145 Filed 08/20/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Case 3:06-cv-02754-EDL Document 145 Filed 08/20/07 Page 4 of 4