Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06050/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06050-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

X ONE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-06050-LHK (SVK)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART X ONE’S MAY 17, 

2019 MOTION TO COMPEL UBER 

DEPOSITIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 145

I. INTRODUCTION 

In this action, Plaintiff X One, Inc. (“X One”) asserts that Defendant Uber Technologies, 

Inc. (“Uber”) infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,798,593 (“the ’593 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 

8,798,647 (“the ’647 Patent”). In particular, X One alleges that Uber’s app and Uber’s ridesharing, car-pooling and delivery services infringe the ’593 and ’647 Patents. See ECF 1. 

Before the Court is one of five joint discovery letters filed by the Parties in recent weeks. 

ECF 133; ECF 135; ECF 139; ECF 144; ECF 145. This order addresses ECF 145 in which X One 

moves to compel Uber to (1) identify witnesses for X One’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

30(b)(6) Topics 3, 4, 10, 22, 29, 35, 38 and 39; (2) produce additional witnesses for deposition 

beyond the ten allotted for under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2); and (3) accept the dates 

offered for the depositions of Jose Picazo and Richard Haney. Id. at 2. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition 

without oral argument. As set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 

PART X One’s motion to compel.

////

////

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 149 Filed 05/22/19 Page 1 of 5
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

II. DISCUSSION 

A. X One’s Rule 30(b)(6) Topics 

X One moves to compel Uber to identify witnesses for its Rule 30(b)(6) Topics 3, 4, 10, 

22, 29, 35, 38 and 39. ECF 145 at 2. Although Uber has yet to do so, it represents that it will 

provide witnesses on all topics except for Topics 3, 4 and 22. Id. at 4. These witnesses are to be 

identified no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 23, 2019. This leaves Topics 3, 4 and 22 

for the Court’s resolution. 

1. Topic 3

The Court finds that Topic 3, which focuses on Uber’s compliance with and execution of

its document retention policy, is proper. Thus, the Court ORDERS Uber to identify and produce

a witness on Topic 3. 

2. Topic 4

Topic 4 focuses on highly specific details of document searches. The topic, as drafted and 

on the facts presented, is not in proportion to the needs of the case and is highly likely to quickly 

and unnecessarily raise issues of attorney client privilege and attorney work product. The Court 

has allowed requests of this detailed nature only upon a showing that document productions to 

date have been inadequate. X One fails to make such a showing here, and as a result, the Court 

DENIES X One’s motion to compel Uber to identify a witness on Topic 4. 

3. Topic 22 

Topic 22 asks Uber to identify a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the facts and documents relating 

to Uber’s contentions on non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability. Id. at 2. While 

interrogatories and requests for production directed at underlying facts in support of noninfringement and invalidity contentions, as well as claims of unenforceability, are generally 

appropriate, a deposition notice directed at these subjects, in a case of this nature, quickly invades 

the area of expert testimony. If X One had demonstrated a reasonable basis to believe that Uber

would have an understanding of this information, separate and apart from the work of its experts 

in this litigation, that would have given the Court additional facts to consider. However, no such 

showing was made here, and therefore, the Court DENIES X One’s motion to compel Uber to 

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 149 Filed 05/22/19 Page 2 of 5
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

identify a witness on Topic 22. 

Accordingly, as set forth above, X One’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART. Further, BOTH PARTIES ARE ORDERED to identify witnesses for all 

outstanding Rule 30(b)(6) topics by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 23, 2019. 

B. X One’s Motion to Compel Additional Depositions

X One seeks permission to exceed Rule 30(a)(2)’s presumptive limit of ten depositions per 

a side. ECF 145 at 2–3. X One alleges that after it had already noticed ten deposition witnesses, 

Uber amended its initial disclosures to identify fourteen new potential witnesses who have

information relevant to this case. Id. at 2. Although its request is not entirely clear, it appears that 

X One seeks to depose five of those witnesses outright and to take personal depositions of each 

Rule 30(b)(6) designee, such that it is requesting permission to conduct “between 17 and 19”

depositions. Id. at 3. 

Uber in turn objects to any depositions beyond the ten depositions allowed by 

Rule 30(a)(2) and argues that X One has failed to demonstrate a need for additional depositions. 

Id. at 4. Uber is willing to offer any of the witnesses it has disclosed for deposition, so long as 

X One stays within Rule 30(a)(2)’s presumptive ten-witness limit. Id. at 5. Lastly, Uber offers to 

extend the time for depositions to June 14, an additional week after the Parties previously agreed 

to conduct depositions. Id. 

A party seeking to exceed Rule 30(a)(2)’s presumptive ten-witness “limit bears the burden 

of making a ‘particularized showing’ of the need for additional depositions.” Thykkuttathil v. 

Keese, 294 F.R.D. 597, 600 (W.D. Wash. 2013) (citations omitted); Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. 

Winter, No. CV057513FMCFMOX, 2008 WL 11338647, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2008). The 

requesting party must also “exhaust less expensive and burdensome means of discovery before 

resorting to a request for relief.” Nat. Res. Def. Council, 2008 WL 11338647, at *2.

Uber’s May 7, 2019 amended initial disclosures identified fourteen “new” witnesses, but 

only three of those are witnesses that X One had not previously seen. The other witnesses had 

previously been identified in interrogatory responses or as Rule 30(b)(6) designees. ECF 145 at 

2–3 and n.1. Although Uber’s disclosure was relatively late in time, in the Parties’ subsequent 

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 149 Filed 05/22/19 Page 3 of 5
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

meet and confer efforts, Uber confirmed that four individuals previously noticed by X One for 

deposition were not going to testify at trial. Id. at 3 n.2. One of these depositions was essentially 

already under way, so X One stated that it planned to proceed with that deposition. Id. That still 

leaves X One three depositions to take while staying within the limits of Rule 30(a)(2). Thus, X 

One has room to take the depositions of the “new” witnesses, if it so chooses. The three “new” 

witnesses, Andrew Macdonald, Minh Duong and Danny Guo, are to be made available by close of 

fact discovery or on a date agreed to by the Parties. The Parties should note that nothing in this 

order sanctions the extension of Court-ordered deadlines. 

X One also requests permission to take individual depositions of all Uber’s Rule 30(b)(6)

designees. This request would require X One to exceed Rule 30(a)(2)’s ten-deposition limit. 

X One fails to articulate why the additional depositions it seeks are necessary or what nonduplicative discovery it seeks from deposing these witnesses in their individual capacities. 

Accordingly, X One has made no showing for relief from the presumptive limit, and therefore, the 

Court DENIES X One’s request for permission to exceed Rule 30(a)(2)’s ten-deposition limit. 

C. Deposition Dates for Jose Picazo and Richard Haney 

X One asks that the depositions of Jose Picazo and Richard Haney proceed on Saturday, 

May 25, and Sunday, May 26. ECF 145 at 4. Uber requests that the Court order X One produce 

both witnesses on business days during the last week of May, noting that no depositions are 

currently scheduled for Tuesday, May 28, or Thursday, May 30. Id. at 6. Here, fact discovery 

closes on May 31, 2019. ECF 96. A deposition time crunch, including the triple-setting of 

depositions and depositions on weekends, while not ideal is difficult to avoid in a case of this 

scope. Accordingly, the depositions of Jose Picazo and Richard Haney shall proceed on Saturday, 

May 25, 2019, and Sunday, May 26, 2019. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, X One’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART. The Court ORDERS as follows: 

• Uber is to identify and produce witnesses for Topics 3, 10, 29, 35, 38 and 39. 

• Both Parties are to identify witnesses for all outstanding Rule 30(b)(6) topics by 

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 149 Filed 05/22/19 Page 4 of 5
5

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

5:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 23, 2019. 

• The Court denies X One’s request for permission to exceed Rule 30(a)(2)’s tendeposition limit. 

• The depositions of Jose Picazo and Richard Haney shall proceed on Saturday, 

May 25, 2019, and Sunday, May 26, 2019.

Dated: May 22, 2019

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 149 Filed 05/22/19 Page 5 of 5