Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01477/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01477-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

PEGATRON TECHNOLOGY SERVICE 

INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY 

INS. CO.,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-01477-LHK (VKD)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE 

DEFENDANT AGLIC’S DEPOSITION 

SUBPOENAS TO NON-PARTY 

CUSTOMER

Re: Dkt. No. 48

Non-party Customer1 moves to quash two depositions subpoenas served by defendant 

American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co. (“AGLIC”). Dkt. No. 48. The Court conducted a 

hearing regarding the dispute on May 10, 2019. Dkt. No. 55.

As the Court explained on the record, the deposition discovery AGLIC seeks from 

Customer is, on the whole, relevant to plaintiff Pegatron Technology Service, Inc.’s (“PTSI”) 

claims and AGLIC’s defenses, and proportional to the needs of the case as framed by those claims 

and defenses. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1-1 (describing Customer’s role in the events giving rise to this 

action).2 In this respect, AGLIC’s proposed discovery of Customer is distinguishable from the 

cases on which Customer relies in which the deposition subpoena was extremely broad or where 

the relevance and value of the subpoenaed testimony was questionable. See, e.g., Straight Path IP 

 

1 The parties have agreed to keep Customer’s identity confidential, and Customer has filed an 

administrative motion to seal its identity and other information (Dkt. No. 46). That administrative 

motion will be addressed in a separate order.

2 At the hearing, AGLIC informed the Court that PTSI identified Customer’s in-house counsel in 

PTSI’s Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) initial disclosures as an individual likely to possess discoverable 

information that may be used to support PTSI’s claims.

Case 5:18-cv-01477-LHK Document 56 Filed 05/10/19 Page 1 of 3
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

Group, Inc. v. Blackberry Ltd., No. C14-80150 WHA, 2014 WL 3401723 at *8–9 (N.D. Cal. July 

8, 2014) (quashing third-party deposition subpoena with 47 “massively overbroad” topics); 

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v. GoDaddy.com, C 12-80192 EJD (PSG), 2012 

WL 12898829, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2012) (quashing third-party deposition subpoena because, 

among other reasons, the discovery sought was not relevant and was redundant of party 

discovery).

The Court has considered the burden Customer says it will suffer if required to prepare and 

produce its in-house counsel for deposition, but the Court concludes that that burden is not undue, 

particularly in view of the following constraints that the Court imposes on AGLIC’s depositions of 

Customer and Customer’s in-house counsel:

1. Unless the AGLIC and Customer agree otherwise, AGLIC will take the Rule 30(b)(6) 

deposition of Customer and the individual deposition of Customer’s in-house counsel 

on a single day on May 14, 2019.

3

 The total deposition time for both depositions 

together will be no more than seven hours on the record. 

2. AGLIC may not inquire regarding Topic 9 in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice (Dkt. No. 49, 

Ex. 1 at 4), as that information is discoverable directly from plaintiff PTSI.

3. The Court expects AGLIC to avoid questioning of Customer and Customer’s in-house 

counsel that duplicates discovery already obtained from PTSI; however, AGLIC may 

question Customer and Customer’s in-house counsel about matters as to which there 

may be a dispute of fact as between Customer and PTSI.

The Court has also considered Customer’s objection that, by virtue of her role as an 

attorney for Customer, Customer’s in-house counsel may not be able to answer some questions 

posed to her if the questions seek information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client 

privilege. The Court concludes that given the role Customer’s in-house counsel played in the 

events underlying the dispute in this action, this objection is best handled on a question-byquestion basis during the deposition. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981)

 

3 Customer advised the Court that it expects that Customer’s in-house counsel will also be 

Customer’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee.

Case 5:18-cv-01477-LHK Document 56 Filed 05/10/19 Page 2 of 3
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

(“The privilege only protects disclosure of communications; it does not protect disclosure of the 

underlying facts by those who communicated with the attorney[.]”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-01477-LHK Document 56 Filed 05/10/19 Page 3 of 3