Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) 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

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR)

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER RE JURISDICTIONAL 

DEPOSITIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 368

The court has received the January 10, 2016 joint discovery letter submitted by Plaintiff 

Loop AI Labs Inc. and Defendant IQSystem Inc. (“IQSystem”) regarding their disputes about the 

depositions of Tony DiNapoli and Gennaro DiNapoli, who are both IQSystem employees. 

Plaintiffs noticed the depositions to take place on January 18, 2016 and January 19, 2016, 

respectively, in San Francisco, California.

1

 [Docket Nos. 368 (Joint Letter), 370.] 

As to Tony DiNapoli, IQSystem argues that Plaintiff has failed to show that he is subject to 

deposition by notice. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, a party may request the 

deposition of another party to the litigation by serving a notice upon that party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(b)(1). Where a corporation is a party, a notice of deposition is sufficient to require the 

corporation to produce its officers, directors, and managing agents for depositions. Calderon v. 

Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 287 F.R.D. 629, 631 (D. Idaho 2012); see also Cadent Ltd. v. 3M Unitek 

Corp., 232 F.R.D. 625, 627 n.1 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (stating that “it is well recognized that ‘if the 

corporation is a party, the notice compels it to produce any ‘officer, director or managing agent’

named in the deposition notice.’” (emphasis removed) (citation omitted)). A subpoena is required 

 

1

In the joint letter, the parties represent that Defendant Anna Gatti also objects to Plaintiff’s 

deposition notice, but that Gatti’s counsel failed to participate in the joint letter process. 

Accordingly, the court declines to consider any objections pertaining to Gatti at this time.

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 376 Filed 01/13/16 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

to depose an entity party’s non-managing agents. See Calderon, 287 F.R.D. at 631. 

Courts generally consider the following factors to determine if a proposed witness is a 

managing agent:

(1) whether the individual is invested with general powers allowing 

him to exercise judgment and discretion in corporate matters; (2) 

whether the individual can be relied upon to give testimony, at his 

employer’s request, in response to the demand of the examining 

party; (3) whether any person or persons are employed by the 

corporate employer in positions of higher authority than the 

individual designated in the area regarding which information is 

sought by the examination; (4) the general responsibilities of the 

individual respecting the matters involved in the litigation.

Calderon, 287 F.R.D. at 632 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). It is the burden of the 

party seeking discovery to prove that a witness is an officer, director, or managing agent of a 

corporation, although this is a “modest” burden and all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the 

party seeking the deposition. Calderon, 287 F.R.D. at 632–22. 

Here, the only argument Plaintiff offers in support of its position that Tony DiNapoli is an 

“officer, director, or managing agent” of IQSystem is that he has identified himself in this 

litigation as Director of Business Development for IQSystem. [See Docket No. 23-1.] Plaintiff

provides no other information about his role or job duties at IQSystem, or his general 

responsibilities respecting the matters involved in the litigation. Accordingly, since Plaintiff has 

failed to meet its burden to establish that Tony DiNapoli is an officer, director, or managing agent 

of IQSystem, the court finds that he is not subject to deposition by notice and need not appear for 

deposition on the date noticed by Plaintiff.

There is no dispute that Gennaro DiNapoli is subject to deposition by notice, as he is the 

founder and President of IQSystem. [See Docket No. 23-2.] However, the parties dispute the 

location of his deposition. Although Gennaro DiNapoli lives in Milan, Italy, Plaintiff argues that 

his deposition should take place in San Francisco because that is IQSystem’s sole place of 

business. In response, IQSystem argues that it is unreasonable to order him to travel from Italy to 

the United States for a one- to three-hour deposition. IQSystem does not dispute that San 

Francisco is its principal place of business.

The general presumption is that the depositions of a corporation by its agents and officers 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 376 Filed 01/13/16 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

should be conducted at the corporation’s principal place of business. Fausto v. Credigy Servs. 

Corp., 251 F.R.D. 427, 429 (N.D. Cal. 2008). When determining whether a corporate defendant 

should be deposed somewhere other than the location of its principal place of business, courts 

consider factors such as the expense involved, the location of counsel for the parties, the number 

of representatives a party seeks to depose, the likelihood of significant discovery disputes arising 

which would necessitate resolution by the forum court, whether the persons sought to be deposed 

often travel for business purposes, and the equities with regard to the nature of the claim and the 

parties’ relationship. Cadent, 232 F.R.D. at 629. Although neither party addressed these factors 

in the joint letter as they pertain to Gennaro DiNapoli, the court finds that they weigh in favor of 

conducting his deposition in California. First, Gennaro DiNapoli is the President of San 

Francisco-based company which ostensibly requires at least some travel to the United States. His 

counsel is in California, and Plaintiff’s counsel is in New York. Given the contentious history of 

discovery in this case, discovery disputes may arise during the upcoming jurisdictional depositions 

that will necessitate resolution by this court. IQSystem has not submitted any evidence or 

argument about the expense of traveling to California for the deposition, nor any argument about 

the equities that would tip the deposition away from the presumptive location. Accordingly, the 

court orders Gennaro DiNapoli to appear for deposition in San Francisco by January 23, 2016, 

unless the parties reach agreement to conduct his deposition on a different date prior to January 

31, 2016 and/or agree to conduct his deposition in New York.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 376 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 3