Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05222/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05222-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 Plaintiff asserted a host of evidentiary objections to various statements made

in defense counsel’s declarations and to defendants’ submitted exhibits. Plaintiff’s

objections may be technically correct in several respects; however, as noted at the hearing,

plaintiff’s efforts appear to have been overkill given the relatively straightforward nature of

the instant discovery dispute. Moreover, plaintiff has affirmatively cited to some of the very

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TCGIVEGA INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KARNA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

KANNAN R. AYYAR, JNANA R. DASH AKA

JNAN DASH; and GREGORY D. HAWKINS,

Defendants.

 /

No. C05-05222 JF (HRL)

ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS;

(2) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; AND (3)

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS

[Re: Docket Nos. 69, 71, 87]

This is a diversity action for alleged breach of contract, fraud and breach of fiduciary

duty. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 and 37, plaintiff TCGIVega Information Technologies now

moves to compel the depositions of defendants Dash, Hawkins and Karna Global Technologies,

Inc. (“Karna Global”). It also seeks monetary sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). 

Defendants oppose those motions and request a protective order as to Hawkins’ deposition. The

parties’ arguments made in support of and in opposition to their respective motions are

essentially the same, and the court will treat all motions together in this order. Upon

consideration of the moving and responding papers,1

 as well as the arguments presented at the

*E-FILED: 6/20/2007*

Case 5:05-cv-05222-JF Document 112 Filed 06/20/07 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 documents it contends were not properly authenticated. As such, this court has exercised its

discretion and considered all of the papers submitted in connection with the instant discovery

dispute. Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied.

2

June 19, 2007 hearing, this court (1) grants plaintiff’s motion to compel; (2) denies defendants’

motion for protective order; and (3) grants in part and denies in part plaintiff’s motion for

sanctions.

Plaintiff claims that, over the past several months, defendants have thwarted its efforts to

take their depositions by repeatedly and unilaterally canceling their depositions at the eleventh

hour, failing to cooperate in scheduling alternate deposition dates, and failing to designate

anyone to testify on Karna Global’s behalf pursuant to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition

notice. Plaintiff requests an order compelling Dash and Hawkins to appear for deposition and

compelling Karna to designate the “person most knowledgeable” to testify on its behalf. 

Plaintiff further contends that defendants’ dilatory conduct warrants the imposition of monetary

sanctions.

Defendants do not oppose plaintiff’s motion to compel Karna Global’s deposition. But

they now take the position – apparently for the first time in their opposition papers – that

plaintiff should not be permitted to depose defendants Dash and Hawkins because these

defendants claim to have no knowledge of the matters at issue in the instant action. Dash and

Hawkins argue that, at most, they should only be required to answer written interrogatories. 

However, defendants’ cited cases, which concern situations where parties sought to depose a

defendant corporation through its non-party officers, are inapposite. Dash and Hawkins are

named defendants who are alleged to have breached their fiduciary duty, and plaintiff seeks to

depose them in their capacity as individuals. These defendants undoubtedly dispute the merits

of the claims being asserted against them. All the same, plaintiff is entitled to depose them and

to ascertain what they do (or do not) know. See FED. R. CIV. P. 30(a)(1). Moreover, defendants

have not convincingly demonstrated that plaintiff should be limited to deposing Dash and

Hawkins through written interrogatories. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel will be

granted.

Case 5:05-cv-05222-JF Document 112 Filed 06/20/07 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

3

Defendants nonetheless request that Hawkins’ deposition take place in New York where

he lives and works. Generally, a defendant is entitled to be deposed in the district in which he

resides. See Grey v. Continental Mktg. Assocs., Inc., 315 F. Supp. 826, 832 (N.D. Ga. 1970). 

Even so, “[a] district court has wide discretion to establish the time and place of depositions.” 

Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, defendants expressly agreed

that their depositions would proceed in California. (See Mot. to Compel, Stebbins Decl., Exs.

M and N; Mot. for Protective Order, McGill Decl., Exs. 8 and 12). Although defense counsel

now regret this agreement and claim that it was made “inadvertently,” the record presented

demonstrates that the agreement was the result of their considered and deliberate decision made

in exchange for plaintiff’s agreement to postpone defendants’ depositions. (See id). Defendants

have not shown good cause to now compel Hawkins’ deposition to proceed in New York. 

Accordingly, their motion for protective order and to be relieved from their prior agreement will

be denied.

As for plaintiff’s requested sanctions, “the court shall require the party failing to act or

the attorney advising that or party or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s

fees, caused by the failure unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or

that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” FED.R.CIV.P. 37(d). Here, there

is no serious dispute that defendants disregarded plaintiff’s deposition notices, cancelled their

depositions at the last minute, and failed to provide alternate dates as promised. However,

defendants argue that they had good cause for doing so in light of the parties’ settlement

discussions and plaintiff’s own alleged bad faith litigation tactics. According to defendants,

plaintiff deceitfully lulled them into believing that they had an effective settlement, but then

later “ambushed” them by reneging on the agreement and stepping up the litigation.

However, the record presented indicates that, while the parties did engage in settlement

discussions, there never was an agreement on all terms. (See Mot. for Protective Order, Chugh

Decl., Ex. 1; McGill Decl., Exs. 3 and 19; Jain Decl., Exs. A and B; Stebbins Decl., Ex. C). 

Moreover, it does not appear that plaintiff misled defendants as to the status of their

negotiations or its intent to proceed with the instant litigation. (See Mot. for Protective Order,

Case 5:05-cv-05222-JF Document 112 Filed 06/20/07 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

Chugh Decl., Ex. 1; Jain Decl., Ex. A). At the same time, however, this court agrees that

plaintiff’s request for over $12,000 in fees and expenses is grossly excessive. Plaintiff’s motion

for payment of its fees and expenses will be granted; however, the award will be limited to

$1000.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions is GRANTED. No later than June 29,

2007, defendants shall (a) designate appropriate person(s) to testify on behalf of defendant

Karna Global; and (b) provide dates certain for the depositions of defendants Karna Global,

Dash and Hawkins.

2. Defendants’ motion for protective order is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN

PART. No later than June 29, 2007, defendants shall pay to plaintiff reasonable fees and

expenses in the amount of $1,000.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

June 20, 2007

Case 5:05-cv-05222-JF Document 112 Filed 06/20/07 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

5

5:05-cv-5222 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Jaipat Singh Jain jjain@lpgk.com 

Antoinette McGill antoinette.mcgill@chugh.com, oscar.rivera@chugh.com; paul@chugh.com 

Melinda Mae Morton mmorton@be-law.com, gsimmons@be-law.com 

Michael W. Stebbins mstebbins@be-law.com, gsimmons@be-law.com; vross@be-law.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.

Case 5:05-cv-05222-JF Document 112 Filed 06/20/07 Page 5 of 5