Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02510/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02510-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL VIEWSONIC PERCIPIENT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS PAGE 1 OF 8

Vaughn R Walker 

Law Office of Vaughn R Walker

Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2200

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel: (415) 871-2888

Fax: (415) 871-2890

vrw@judgewalker.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION

This Order Relates to:

ViewSonic Corp v Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd, 

et al, No 14-cv-02510

 MDL No 1917

 Master Case No 3:07-cv-05944SC

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 

VIEWSONIC PERCIPIENT WITNESS 

DEPOSITIONS 

 

Case 3:14-cv-02510-JST Document 111 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 8
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 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL VIEWSONIC PERCIPIENT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS PAGE 2 OF 8

Defendants move to compel depositions of two ViewSonic percipient witnesses: 

Bonny Cheng, ViewSonic’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness and James Chu, its CEO, to address ViewSonic’s 

purchasing practices, prices paid to obtain CRT monitors, discounts received, the location and 

outcome of ViewSonic’s negotiations, and ViewSonic’s corporate structure and legal entities.

1

ViewSonic has refused to produce those witnesses for depositions on the grounds that: (1)

defendants already asked questions of Bonny Cheng as a percipient witness during her Rule 

30(b)(6) deposition and it would be extremely burdensome to require her to take a week off 

from her corporate responsibilities to travel from Asia to prepare for and provide a second, 

cumulative deposition and (2) James Chu does not possess unique, first-hand knowledge 

relevant to this case and defendants have not exhausted other less intrusive methods of 

obtaining such information.

l.

On October 9, 2014, defendants deposed Bonny Cheng as ViewSonic’s Rule 

30(b)(6) witness. It appears undisputed that ViewSonic did not disclose her identity as its Rule 

30(b)(6) witness until the morning of the deposition.

On October 15, 2014, defendants requested depositions of eight percipient 

witnesses, including Bonny Cheng and James Chu, to testify about ViewSonic’s purchasing 

practices. Ex 2, Van Horn Dec (10/15/14 Van Horn Letter to Heaven (ViewSonic’s counsel)). 

On November 6-7, 2014, defendants deposed two ViewSonic witnesses – Bodil 

Chen-Kao and Rose Yang. According to defendants, “[f]or the most part, these witnesses 

disclaimed knowledge of the purchasing practices of ViewSonic during the relevant period.” 

 

1 This motion was originally filed by counsel for the Mitsubishi Defendants (11/18/14 

Defendants’ Motion). But since the Mitsubishi Defendants have settled with ViewSonic (ECF No 3856), 

other defendants, e g, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd, Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and 

LG Electronics, Inc, are proceeding with this motion. See 5/8/15 Chunghwa Letter and ECF No 4054 filed 

9/11/15 (Order adopting Special Master’s Report & Recommendations re Coordination of Discovery 

Motions, ordering that non-settling parties may proceed with settling parties’ discovery motions).

Case 3:14-cv-02510-JST Document 111 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 8
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 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL VIEWSONIC PERCIPIENT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS PAGE 3 OF 8

Defendants’ Motion at 2. But the parties’ submissions indicate that some relevant testimony 

was obtained from Rose Yang. See Ex 9 at 3, Heaven Dec.

On October 22, 2014, ViewSonic refused to make Bonny Cheng available as a 

percipient witness because she had already served as the corporate representative for the Rule 

30(b)(6) deposition during which time she had been asked questions in her personal capacity. 

Ex 3, Van Horn Dec in support of defendants’ motion (10/22/14 Heaven Letter to Van Horn). 

ViewSonic also refused to make James Chu, ViewSonic’s CEO, available for deposition because 

he is the CEO, the apex deposition rules apply and he had no first-hand information that could 

not be obtained from other witnesses. Id; see Ex 4, Van Horn Dec.

The parties have not been able to resolve this discovery dispute despite meeting 

and conferring.

II.

A. Defendants’ Motion to Compel the Deposition of Bonny Cheng as a 

Percipient Witness

ViewSonic objects to the deposition of Bonny Cheng as a percipient witness on 

the grounds that she was already deposed as ViewSonic’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness and the burden 

of a second deposition of Bonny Cheng would significantly outweigh the benefits to defendants. 

ViewSonic contends that it would be exceptionally burdensome for Ms Cheng to travel from 

Asia to the United States, prepare for yet another deposition and spend an entire week away 

from her corporate responsibilities. ViewSonic’s Opposition at 9-10. ViewSonic also asserts 

that her testimony would be unreasonably cumulative because: (1) she answered numerous 

questions already about ViewSonic’s procurement practices; (2) ViewSonic produced two CRT 

monitor procurement agents for deposition, Rose Yang and Bodil Cheng-Kao, whose deposition 

lasted only 76 minutes and (3) ViewSonic responded to “numerous written discovery requests 

regarding its purchasing practices and personnel.” ViewSonic’s Opposition at 10-11. ViewSonic 

Case 3:14-cv-02510-JST Document 111 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 8
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 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL VIEWSONIC PERCIPIENT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS PAGE 4 OF 8

also cites to the Discovery Protocol as consistent with limiting discovery. ViewSonic’s 

Opposition at 10.

The undersigned finds that the interests of full and fair discovery weigh in favor 

of granting defendants’ motion to compel the deposition of Bonny Cheng. The Discovery 

Protocol contemplates taking depositions of the same witness as both a Rule 30(b)(6) witness 

as well as a percipient witness. 4/3/12 Order re Discovery and Case Management Protocol at 5, 

ECF No 1128 (“Discovery Protocol”). Nothing in the Discovery Protocol supports denying 

defendants’ motion to compel the deposition of Bonny Cheng as a fact witness. Merely 

because a witness has been deposed as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness does not preclude that person 

from being deposed a second time as a percipient witness.

Defendants would not have been prepared to depose Bonny Cheng as a 

percipient witness during her Rule 30(b)(6) deposition because ViewSonic did not disclose her 

identity until the morning of her deposition. Defendants did not, therefore, have sufficient 

time to prepare to question Ms Cheng, the person most knowledgeable about ViewSonic’s CRT 

procurement practices during the relevant period, as a percipient witness.

Based on the parties’ submissions, it does not appear that the deposition of 

Bonny Cheng as a percipient witness would be cumulative or that the information could be 

obtained via less burdensome methods because: (1) Bonny Cheng was the employee with 

greatest responsibility for, and therefore knowledge of, ViewSonic’s procurement practices and 

negotiations during the relevant period, whereas the two other deponents (Rose Yang and 

Bodil Chen-Kao) were purchasing agents who reported to her (see Ex 5-6, Heaven Dec); (2)

defendants did not have the benefit of questioning Bonny Cheng with documents from her 

custodial files during the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and (3) ViewSonic’s written discovery 

responses were brief and high-level (Ex 2, Heaven Dec (10/7/14 ViewSonic’s Supp Responses 

and Objections to Mitsubishi Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories)). Thus, it appears that 

highly relevant and noncumulative subjects may be covered in the deposition of Bonny Cheng 

as a percipient witness.

Case 3:14-cv-02510-JST Document 111 Filed 09/18/15 Page 4 of 8
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 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL VIEWSONIC PERCIPIENT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS PAGE 5 OF 8

ViewSonic’s claim of burden associated with producing Bonny Cheng for a 

second deposition, requiring her to travel from Asia and taking her away from her corporate 

responsibilities for at least a week, is not persuasive. ViewSonic is a plaintiff in this complex 

litigation and depositions of high-ranking, knowledgeable corporate officers residing abroad are 

to be expected in such cases. The undersigned finds that the burden of deposing Bonny Cheng 

as a fact witness would not outweigh the potential benefit of the discovery sought, which may

be highly relevant to the merits of ViewSonic’s antitrust claims and damages. For example, 

ViewSonic’s purchasing practices, e g, prices paid for CRT monitors and discounts received from 

CRT monitor manufacturers are directly relevant to damages. The location and outcome of 

ViewSonic’s negotiations with CRT monitor manufacturers may establish whether ViewSonic’s 

purchases were foreign or domestic, facts that directly relate to the applicability of the FTAIA 

(Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act).

As the party opposing discovery, ViewSonic bears the burden of justifying its 

refusal to produce. The undersigned finds that ViewSonic has failed to articulate any 

persuasive basis for denying defendants’ motion to compel the deposition of Bonny Cheng as a 

percipient witness.

B. Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of ViewSonic’s CEO, James 

Chu

Defendants seek to depose ViewSonic’s founder and CEO, James Chu, on two 

topics relevant to Defendants’ FTAIA arguments: (1) ViewSonic’s practices of shipping CRT 

monitors it procured into consumer markets (where, when and how) (“product flow”) and (2) 

ViewSonic’s overall corporate structure, including its legal entities involved in CRT monitor 

purchasing, shipping and sales. Defendants’ Reply at 4.

ViewSonic has refused to make James Chu available for deposition, citing the 

“apex deposition” rules and asserting that James Chu lacks unique, first-hand knowledge of 

Case 3:14-cv-02510-JST Document 111 Filed 09/18/15 Page 5 of 8
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 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL VIEWSONIC PERCIPIENT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS PAGE 6 OF 8

relevant facts and that defendants have failed to exhaust other, less-intrusive means of 

discovering the information. See ViewSonic’s 12/12/14 Opposition at 1-4.

A party seeking to prevent a deposition carries a heavy burden to show why the 

discovery should be denied. In re Google Litigation, 2011 WL 4985279 at *2 (ND Cal 2011). In 

determining whether to allow an “apex deposition” of a company CEO, courts consider: (1) 

whether the apex deponent possesses unique, first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of facts at 

issue in the litigation and (2) whether the party seeking discovery has exhausted other less 

intrusive discovery methods. KCR v County of Los Angeles, 2014 WL 3434257 at *3 (ND Cal 

2014). In Celerity Inc v Ultra Clean Holding, Inc, 2007 WL 205067 at *3 (ND Cal 2007), the court 

granted a protective order precluding the depositions of a party’s president and its chairman of 

the board, finding they possessed no unique knowledge of relevant facts, directing the party 

seeking discovery to seek the information through less intrusive means such as interrogatories 

and depositions of lower-level employees and allowing the party to renew its notices of 

depositions of the president and chairman of the board if the alternative discovery methods 

proved inadequate. In Doble v Mega Life and Health Ins Co, 2010 WL 1998904 (ND Cal 2011), 

the court granted a motion for protective order barring the deposition of a party’s CEO, despite 

emails authored by the CEO exhorting employees to resolve the matter, finding that there was 

no evidence that the CEO possessed any first-hand knowledge of the relevant facts since the 

high-level emails were essentially managerial and not reflective of the unique personal 

knowledge required to compel the deposition of a CEO.

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the undersigned finds that James Chu 

is likely to possess unique, non-repetitive, first-hand information relevant to the issues in this 

case. Defendants cite to an email authored by James Chu referring to CRT “cash discounts” that 

Bonny Cheng, a recipient, was not able to recall during her Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and refused 

to speculate on the term’s meaning as used by the author. See Exs 7 and 11 to ViewSonic’s 

Motion. ViewSonic argues that defendants failed to ask Rose Yang, also a recipient of the 

email, any questions about the email or use it as an exhibit, thus showing that defendants failed 

Case 3:14-cv-02510-JST Document 111 Filed 09/18/15 Page 6 of 8
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 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL VIEWSONIC PERCIPIENT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS PAGE 7 OF 8

to exhaust less-intrusive forms of discovery. But like Bonny Cheng, Rose Yang would not have 

been able to answer the question what was meant by the term “cash discounts” because the 

only person who could answer with first-hand knowledge would be the author, James Chu. 

Regarding ViewSonic’s practices of shipping CRT monitors it procured into 

consumer markets and ViewSonic’s corporate structure and legal entities, in particular which 

entities purchased and sold CRTs during the relevant period, it is reasonable to expect that the

founder and CEO of ViewSonic will possess unique, first-hand knowledge. As CEO throughout 

the relevant period, James Chu is responsible for “the overall strategic direction of the 

company” and should be knowledgeable about which ViewSonic entities purchased or shipped 

CRT monitors, information that would be highly relevant to ViewSonic’s claims in this litigation. 

Having reviewed the submitted testimony of ViewSonic’s witnesses, the 

undersigned finds that the testimony excerpts establish that either the witnesses had little 

interaction with James Chu or that they did not believe that he was familiar with “these kind 

[sic] of details.” The testimony does not prove that James Chu lacks first-hand, unique 

knowledge on the topics for which defendants seek his deposition.

Nevertheless, in the interests of ensuring that defendants have exhausted other, 

less intrusive avenues for discovering such information, the undersigned approves the

defendants’ suggested approach of staging, by taking the deposition of Bonny Cheng first, and if 

she or another ViewSonic witness were to provide the needed testimony, then the deposition 

of James Chu may not be necessary. See Defendants’ Reply at 5.

The undersigned finds that James Chu possesses unique, first-hand knowledge of 

relevant facts in this litigation. But it is not clear that defendants have exhausted other, less 

intrusive discovery methods. If defendants are granted the opportunity to depose Bonny 

Cheng as a percipient witness, they may obtain sufficient relevant discovery on these issues. 

Accordingly, if after the deposition of Bonny Cheng, defendants still have not obtained 

sufficient discovery on the topics sought from James Chu, they may renew their motion to 

compel his deposition. But staging the depositions in this manner incentivizes ViewSonic to 

Case 3:14-cv-02510-JST Document 111 Filed 09/18/15 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:14-cv-02510-JST Document 111 Filed 09/18/15 Page 8 of 8