Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTAGIO CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-3592 PJH (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO ENFORCE DEPOSITION

NOTICES, MOTION TO COMPEL

DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE

DOCUMENTS, AND MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS; AND DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Docket Nos. 54-56, 65)

Intagio’s motions to enforce deposition notices, to compel production of documents, and for

sanctions came on for hearing along with Tiger Oak’s motion for protective order on January 31,

2007. Having considered the papers and argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor,

the Court hereby GRANTS Intagio’s motions and DENIES Tiger Oak’s motion for the reasons

stated in the record, as supplemented herein below.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Intagio’s Motion to Enforce Deposition Notices

Although there is an initial presumption that depositions of a defendant should be taken in

the district of its place of business, see Rapoca Energy Co., L.P. v. AMCI Exp. Corp., 199 F.R.D.

191 , 193 (W.D. Va. 2001), that presumption is not conclusive. The Court also consider factors

such as the location of counsel for both parties, the size of the corporation, and the economy

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 101 Filed 02/05/07 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

obtained by having the discovery occur in the forum court. See Turner v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,

119 F.R.D. 381, 383 (M.D.N.C. 1988); see also 7-30 Moore’s Fed. Prac. -- Civ. § 30.20[1][b][ii]. 

In the instant case, lead counsel for both parties are located in this District. There is no showing that

Tiger Oak is so small that having its president out of the office for two or three days will have a

substantial impact on its operations. Moreover, counsel for Tiger Oak stated that Ms. Coffman, who

is located in Washington, frequently flies back and forth between Washington and Minnesota. 

Finally, a court-ordered mediation is scheduled to take place in February in this District; Mr.

Bednar’s participation will likely facilitate that mediation. Intagio has agreed to schedule the

deposition so that Mr. Bednar need only take one trip should he attend the mediation. 

As to Ms. Coffman, she is usually in the state of Washington. The trip to this District is

short and will not create a great inconvenience.

The depositions of Mr. Bednar and Ms. Coffman will take place in San Francisco the first

and second day prior to the mediation herein (i.e., on February 12 and 13, 2007). Intagio will be

responsible for reasonable travel costs of both deponents, except that, if Mr. Bednar attends the

mediation, Intagio will pay one-half of his travel expenses.

B. Intagio’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Intagio contends that documents were not timely produced and further that many documents

are still owed. The Court directs Tiger Oak’s counsel to go over Intagio’s reply brief on this motion,

which lists the suspected deficiencies in production, with a responsible and knowledgeable

representative of Tiger Oak and determine whether there are any more documents responsive to the

requests that should be produced. By February 9, 2007, Tiger Oaks shall produce all additional

documents responsive to Intagio’s requests and certify that all responsive documents have been

produced. That certification shall be given under oath and shall describe search efforts undertaken

by Tiger Oak.

C. Intagio’s Motion for Sanctions

Intagio moves for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

37(a)(4). The Court denies the motion with respect to Intagio’s motion to enforce deposition notices

because Tiger Oak’s position on the merits of the location question was substantially justified. 

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 101 Filed 02/05/07 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

There is an initial presumption that the depositions should take place at the place of the defendant’s

business. However, Tiger Oak should have sought a protective order before the deposition dates

rather than unilaterally refusing to appear at the depositions. Thus, although Intagio is not entitled to

fees and costs in bringing this motion (since it would have incurred fees and costs in opposition to a

timely motion for protective order), Intagio is entitled to the court reporter fees incurred and for one

hour of counsel’s time in attending each of the depositions at which Tiger Oak did not appear (i.e.,

total fees of $700).

As to the motion to compel production of documents, Tiger Oak’s failure to promptly

provide documents identified in its response to the production request was not substantially justified. 

There was no need to await stipulation on a protective order before producing the vast majority of

documents which were not designated confidential. Lead counsel’s busy schedule does not

constitute substantial justification for failing to comply with the Federal Rules. Moreover, as

counsel stated at the hearing, Tiger Oak had local counsel in Minnesota that could have facilitated a

timely production of documents. The documents were not produced until after this motion was

filed. Accordingly, Intagio is entitled to reasonable fees and costs incurred in making this motion.

Intagio seeks $8,750 in fees and costs in bringing the motion to compel production of

documents. As the Court indicated at the hearing, counsel from both parties have engaged in gross

inefficiencies in connection with the instant discovery motions, filing massive amounts of papers

and numerous briefs, much of which contained irrelevant or marginal issues or were repetitive. The

issue is a simple one that could have been briefed in a few pages. Accordingly, the Court concludes

that reasonable fees for the motion to compel production of documents, including efforts to meet

and confer, should not exceed $2,000. The Court therefore awards $2,000 for fees and costs in

connection with this motion.

D. Tiger Oak’s Motion for Protective Order

In view of the above, Tiger Oak’s motion for protective order is denied.

E. Future Discovery Matters

The inefficiencies of both counsel in this case and their failure to resolve the discovery

disputes herein are particularly troubling because the underlying dispute involves only slightly more

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 101 Filed 02/05/07 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

than $70,000, and the current proceedings before Judge Hamilton only involve arbitrability, not the

ultimate question of liability on the merits. The conduct of the litigation thus far violates the spirit

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which is designed to secure the “just, speedy, and inexpensive

determination” of every action as well as the proportionality requirements of Rule 26(b)(2). If this

manner of litigation is not arrested, counsel will likely force their respective clients to incur

attorney’s fees far exceeding the amount in controversy.

Accordingly, should any future discovery dispute arise, the parties shall meet and confer in

earnest and in good faith to resolve the dispute. If necessary, they will then file a joint letter not

exceeding three pages in length describing the precise dispute(s) and stating their respective

positions as to each such dispute(s). The Court will then decide whether additional briefing or

hearing is needed. Counsel is warned that the Court may also require counsel to attend an in-person

meet and confer at the courthouse and, if circumstances warrant, require the attendance by the

clients.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 54-56 and 65.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 101 Filed 02/05/07 Page 4 of 4