Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02140/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02140-13/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

LA BOUTIQUE DU SOFTWARETECH 

INC., a Canadian Corporation doing business 

as SOFTWARE TECH and SOFTWARE 

TECH STORE; FUTUR-SOFT 

SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a New 

York Corporation; PIERRE FRANCIS, an 

Individual; and DOES 3-10, Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-02140-RMW (HRL)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE REPORT 

NO. 2

Re: Dkt. No. 101

In a prior discovery dispute report, plaintiff Adobe Systems Incorporated (Adobe) moved 

this court for an order striking defendants’ answers as a discovery sanction for their failure to 

appear for deposition and for their failure to produce Osama Shamma and Delilah Kanou for 

deposition. Dkt. 94. This court concluded that striking defendants’ answers pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 37 might well be justified. Dkt. 95. But, because there was still reasonable time under the 

court’s scheduling order to conduct the subject depositions (notwithstanding that discovery had 

closed), this court instead ordered defendants to appear in the United States for their depositions 

no later than November 16, 2015. Defendants were also directed to produce Shamma and Kanou 

for deposition here by that same date. Additionally, this court awarded Adobe its attorney’s fees 

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 104 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 4
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

incurred in pursuing the (failed) depositions. Dkt. 95, 103. Adobe’s request for terminating 

sanctions otherwise was denied without prejudice to Adobe to renew that request if defendants 

again failed to cooperate in the scheduling of their depositions, failed to appear for examination, or 

failed to produce Shamma and Kanou for deposition. Dkt. 95.

Adobe now renews its request to strike the answer of defendant Francis1and additionally 

requests that his default be entered. Because the relief sought is dispositive in nature, this court 

issues this report and recommendation that Adobe’s request be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72.

Plaintiff advises that it immediately emailed this court’s prior discovery order to 

defendants and again attempted to schedule the ordered depositions. According to Adobe,

defendants refused to participate in the scheduling of the depositions. So, Adobe says it then 

served notices of deposition, by mail and email, setting the depositions of Kanou and Shamma for 

November 10, 2015, the corporate defendants for November 11, 2015, and Francis for November 

12, 2015. Dkt. 101, Ex. A. Adobe says that despite its efforts and this court’s prior order 

compelling the depositions, defendants again failed to appear for deposition and also failed to 

produce Shamma and Kanou for deposition. Id., Ex. B.

Although the record demonstrates that Adobe served the instant discovery report on 

defendants by mail over a month ago (Dkt. 101 at 5), this court has not received any response 

from them.

As discussed in this court’s prior discovery order:

If a party fails to appear for a properly noticed deposition, the court may 

sanction that party by, among other things, striking its pleadings in whole or 

in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d); 37(b)(2)(A)(iii) [footnote omitted]. Such 

sanctions are appropriate, even in the absence of a prior court order. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 37(d); Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762, 764-65 (9th Cir. 

1996). “Instead of or in addition to these sanctions, the court must require 

the party failing to act, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the 

reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless 

the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award 

of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3).

 

1 Adobe advises that Judge Whyte has granted its separate motion to strike the corporate 

defendants’ answers. Accordingly, Adobe’s prior request to have this court do the same (as a 

discovery sanction) is moot.

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 104 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Before ordering a terminating sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) for 

failure to appear at a deposition, the court must balance five factors: (1) the 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need 

to manage its dockets, (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking 

sanctions, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits 

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 

F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 

656 (9th Cir.1990)). The first two factors weigh in favor of the imposition 

of terminating sanctions, while the fourth factor cuts against it. “Thus the 

key factors are prejudice and the availability of lesser sanctions.” 

Wanderer, 910 F.2d at 656.

This court finds that striking defendants’ answers might well be justified. 

Plaintiff is entitled to obtain testimony on matters pertinent to this lawsuit, 

and the record presented indicates that each of the deponents likely has 

information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence. Defendants flatly refused to appear and to produce 

witnesses for the noticed examinations. They also ignored plaintiff’s 

repeated efforts to schedule (and reschedule) the depositions.

Dkt. 95 at 2-3. As discussed, this court imposed the less drastic sanction of a fee award. 

Additionally, defendants were warned that this court would consider a renewed request for 

terminating sanctions if they again failed to cooperate in the scheduling of their depositions, to

appear for their depositions, or to produce Shamma and Kanou for deposition. Dkt. 95 at 3. 

Nevertheless, defendants continue to refuse to do any of those things, in apparent disregard of this 

court’s order. Discovery closed long ago, and there simply is no more time to take these 

depositions, at least not without jeopardizing the court-ordered case schedule that was set months 

ago. To the extent defendant Francis has an explanation justifying this conduct, he has not 

informed this court.

Accordingly, this court recommends that Adobe’s renewed request for sanctions be 

granted, that defendant Francis’ answer (Dkt. 57) be stricken from the record, and that default be 

entered against him. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A), 37(d).

Any party who wishes to file objections to this Report and Recommendation must do so no 

later than January 7, 2016. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

Dated: December 17, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 104 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 4
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

5:14-cv-02140-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Christopher Quang Pham cpham@johnsonpham.com, cbrannan@johnsonpham.com, 

jvener@johnsonpham.com, mchaney@johnsonpham.com, ndrey@johnsonpham.com, 

ppham@johnsonpham.com

Hung Q Pham ppham@johnsonpham.com

Nicole L Drey ndrey@johnsonpham.com

5:14-cv-02140-RMW Notice sent by U.S. Mail on December 18, 2015 to:

La Boutique du Softwaretech, Inc. dba Software Tech

7415 Gouin Boulevard West

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4K 1B8

Software Tech Store

7415 Gouin Boulevard West

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4K 1B8

Futur-Soft Solutions Corp.

7415 Gouin Boulevard West

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4K 1B8

Pierre Francis

7415 Gouin Boulevard West

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4K 1B8

Case 5:14-cv-02140-RMW Document 104 Filed 12/18/15 Page 4 of 4