Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-md-02420/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-md-02420-98/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE:

LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION

Case No. 13-md-02420-YGR (DMR)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION 

OF JAE JEONG JOE

Re: Dkt. No. 1122

Plaintiffs and Defendants LG Chem Ltd. and LG Chem America, Inc. (“LG Chem”) filed a 

joint discovery letter brief regarding Plaintiffs’ motion to compel LG Chem to produce Jae Jeong 

Joe for deposition. [Docket No. 1122 (Jt. Letter).] In the joint letter, Plaintiffs contend that LG 

Chem violated the terms of the deposition protocol governing this case. They ask the court to 

order LG Chem to make Joe available for deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

30(b)(1) before March 31, 2016, the date his contract expires with LG Chem, rather than utilizing 

the procedures of the Hague Convention to secure his appearance.

On March 11, 2016, the court ordered the parties to submit further evidence and briefing

regarding the dispute. [Docket No. 1143.] The parties timely filed the requested evidence and 

briefing. [Docket Nos. 1162 (Sung Han Ryu Decl.), 1170 (Suppl. Jt. Letter).] The court finds this 

matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the following 

reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. 

I. DISCUSSION

A. Background Regarding Deposition Protocol and the Parties’ Prior Dispute

In August 2014, the parties submitted to the undersigned their disputes about a proposed 

deposition protocol. [Docket No. 501 (Jt. Letter re Depo. Protocol).] One of the disputes involved 

the implementation of a deposition protocol for departing employees, including a notification 

procedure. Plaintiffs sought the implementation of a procedure by which Defendants would (1) 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1177 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 9
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

give notice if an employee identified by Plaintiffs as a custodian or possible witness ceased 

employment, and (2) produce the witness for deposition to the extent reasonably possible before or 

after departure. Plaintiffs argued this procedure was necessary to avoid “complicated, lengthy 

proceedings for the issuance of letters rogatory” since most custodians and witnesses are located 

overseas and beyond the reach of a Rule 45 subpoena. Jt. Letter re Depo. Protocol at 3. Plaintiffs 

proposed that these requirements apply first to the custodians for the grand jury document 

productions,

1

before the establishment of witness or custodian lists. Jt. Letter re Depo. Protocol at 

2. Defendants objected, arguing that such a procedure would be unduly burdensome. Jt. Letter re 

Depo. Protocol at 3. 

The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to implement the proposed notification procedure, 

permitting Plaintiffs to establish “watchlists” of up to fifteen custodians or witnesses per 

Defendant group for whom the notification and production requirements would apply. The court’s 

December 3, 2014 Order re Deposition Protocol provided that for each individual on Plaintiffs’ 

watchlists, “Defendants shall timely inform Plaintiffs in writing if they become aware that such 

person intends to leave, or does leave, his or her employment, to the extent reasonably possible,” 

and that upon request, “Defendants shall make that person available for deposition either before or 

after his or her departure, to the extent reasonably possible.” [Docket No. 593 (Deposition 

Protocol) § I (C).]

In August 2015, Plaintiffs moved to compel LG Chem to produce a former Vice President 

of LG Chem’s battery business, Seok Hwan Kwak, for deposition. [Docket No. 764.] Plaintiffs 

argued that LG Chem failed to comply with the watchlist provision of the deposition protocol. At 

the September 10, 2015 hearing, the court ordered LG Chem to produce Kwak for deposition 

within 30 days of the hearing. In a subsequent order, the court found that LG Chem had violated 

the watchlist provision of the protocol by failing to promptly notify Plaintiffs of Kwak’s departure 

from LG Chem and failure to produce Kwak for deposition. The court also held that Kwak was a 

 

1 Certain Defendants produced documents to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and/or a 

grand jury in connection with investigations relating to lithium ion batteries or battery products.

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1177 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 9
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

managing agent as of the date Plaintiffs first requested his deposition and was thus subject to 

deposition by notice pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1). In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 

13-md-02420-YGR (DMR), 2015 WL 5440789, at *4, *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2015).

B. The Present Dispute Regarding Jae Jeong Joe

Plaintiffs now seek to compel the deposition of Jae Jeong Joe, a former Executive Director 

and officer for LG Chem’s battery business. Plaintiffs assert that Joe, who is based in Asia, was 

“an active participant in the collusion” underlying Plaintiffs’ claims. Jt. Letter at 1. Joe was a 

custodian who produced documents to the DOJ. There is no dispute that Joe has been on 

Plaintiffs’ watchlist since its inception.

 On November 26, 2015, LG Chem notified Joe that his employment contract would not 

be renewed for 2016. LG Chem notified Plaintiffs that it would not be renewing Joe’s contract on 

December 4, 2015. That same day, Plaintiffs asked LG Chem to notify Plaintiffs whether it would 

make Joe available for deposition on or before March 31, 2016. LG Chem did not respond. Jt. 

Letter Ex. A. On December 8, 2015, Plaintiffs requested in writing that LG Chem provide a date 

when Joe would appear for deposition. LG Chem did not respond. Id. On January 29, 2016, 

Plaintiffs noticed Joe’s deposition for February 15, 2016 and asked LG Chem to produce his 

personnel file. Jt. Letter at 2. According to LG Chem, it “consistently sought to secure the 

deposition of Mr. Joe” following the notice of deposition, and advised Plaintiffs of Joe’s 

unwillingness to be deposed. Plaintiffs subsequently served an amended notice of deposition for 

Joe, noticing his deposition for February 29, 2016. LG Chem informed Plaintiffs that he would 

not appear on that date but did not offer any other dates. Id. Joe did not appear for deposition on 

February 29, 2016. According to LG Chem, it has contacted Joe approximately 12 times since 

Plaintiffs first noticed his deposition, but Joe has been uncooperative and refuses to be deposed. 

Jt. Letter at 5.

C. Analysis

1. Whether LG Chem Complied with the Deposition Protocol

At the court’s request, LG Chem submitted supplemental evidence regarding Joe’s 

employment and termination, including Joe’s human resources file, as well as evidence regarding 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1177 Filed 03/24/16 Page 3 of 9
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

LG Chem’s efforts to secure Joe’s appearance for deposition. Ryu Decl., March 15, 2016, Ex. A. 

These records, dated March 10, 2016, indicate that LG Chem hired Joe in 1988, and his current 

position is Executive Director in the Advisor’s Office, in the job of “management consulting.” He 

holds the “rank” of “officer.” Ryu Decl. Ex. A. According to Sung Han Ryu, an attorney with LG 

Chem, Joe was most recently employed as a Vice President in LG Chem’s Mobile Battery Pack 

Production Department. Ryu Decl. ¶ 2. 

Ryu states that LG Chem notified Joe in writing on November 26, 2015 that the company 

was not renewing his employment contract for 2016, and that Joe was “effectively relieved of his 

job responsibilities as of November 26, 2015.” Ryu Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7. Notably, Joe’s human 

resources file contains no indication that he resigned, retired, or was terminated. Ryu Decl. Ex. A. 

Joe’s employment contract is valid through March 31, 2016. He continues to receive full 

compensation and other benefits through March 2016, including payment of vehicle and cell 

phone expenses, health benefits, and children’s educational expenses. Ryu Decl. Ex. B. 

Moreover, Joe’s termination notice indicates that on April 1, 2016, LG Chem will appoint him as 

“a part-time advisor” to “provide advice in response to the request of the company about various 

tasks” for a one or two year term. Id.

Ryu states that LG Chem began contacting Joe regarding his deposition soon after 

Plaintiffs served a deposition notice for Joe on January 29, 2016, and describes multiple telephone 

calls and text messages to Joe from January 29, 2016 through March 14, 2016. Ryu Decl. ¶¶ 9-14, 

16-24. Ryu also describes two meetings between Joe and LG Chem representatives in February 

2016 at which the representatives asked him to appear for deposition. Id. at ¶¶ 14, 17. According 

to Ryu, Joe has repeatedly refused to agree to sit for deposition and/or ignored these 

communications. 

As with Kwak, the court finds that LG Chem failed to comply with the watchlist provision 

of the deposition protocol. The notification procedure provision provides that “Defendants shall 

timely inform Plaintiffs in writing if they become aware that [a person on the watchlist] intends to 

leave, or does leave, his or her employment, to the extent reasonably possible,” and that upon 

request, “Defendants shall make that person available for deposition either before or after his or 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1177 Filed 03/24/16 Page 4 of 9
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

her departure, to the extent reasonably possible.” As the court previously explained, the purpose 

of this provision “is to give Plaintiffs sufficient notice of a witness’s departure so that a defendant 

can promptly produce him or her for deposition to avoid complicated, lengthy proceedings for 

issuance of letters rogatory.” In re Lithium Ion, 2015 WL 5440789, at *4. LG Chem does not 

dispute that Plaintiffs requested dates for Joe’s deposition on December 4 and 8, 2015, 

immediately after LG Chem informed Plaintiffs that it was not renewing Joe’s contract. Yet it 

took no action to secure Joe’s deposition until January 29, 2016, almost two months later. LG 

Chem apparently takes the position that only a formal notice of deposition is sufficient to trigger 

its responsibilities under the deposition protocol. However, the protocol itself states that “[a] letter 

or telephone call suffices to begin the process of scheduling a deposition,” and that “the court 

anticipates that the Parties should be able to confirm the date and location of a deposition within 

three weeks of a request.” Deposition Protocol § III(D). Since Joe was on Plaintiffs’ watchlist, 

LG Chem should have immediately taken steps to produce him for deposition in response to 

Plaintiffs’ December 2015 requests. Its failure to do so constitutes a violation of the deposition 

protocol.

2. Whether Kwak May Be Deposed Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) Deposition 

Notice

As discussed above, the court finds that under the terms of the deposition protocol, LG 

Chem should have produced Joe for deposition pursuant to Plaintiffs’ requests in early December

2015. LG Chem argues that as of November 26, 2015, Joe no longer had any responsibilities with 

LG Chem; therefore, it argues, Joe was not a “managing agent” and thus not subject to deposition 

by notice pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1).

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). 

“However, a corporate employee or agent who does not qualify as an officer, director, or 

managing agent is not subject to deposition by notice.” United States v. Afram Lines (USA), Ltd.,

159 F.R.D. 408, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). If the witness is located in another country, the party 

seeking the deposition must utilize the procedures of the Hague Convention or other applicable 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1177 Filed 03/24/16 Page 5 of 9
6

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

treaty. Id.

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 v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 287 F.R.D. 629, 632 (D. Idaho 2012) (emphasis in original) 

(citations omitted). The factors have also been described as “[(1)] whether the corporation has 

invested the person with discretion to exercise his judgment; (2) whether the employee can be 

depended upon to carry out the employer’s directions, and (3) whether the individual can be 

expected to identify him or herself with the interests of the corporation as opposed to the interests 

of the opposing party.” Id. (quoting In re Honda Am. Motor Co., Inc. Dealership Relations Litig.,

168 F.R.D. 535, 540-41 (D. Md. 1996)). “[T]he question of whether a particular person is a 

‘managing agent’ is to be answered pragmatically, on an ad hoc basis, considering the facts of the 

particular case. Further, at least where the question is whether the deposition should occur, as 

opposed to whether the corporation may ultimately be bound by the employee’s statements . . . the 

witness’s likely ‘identification with the interests of the employer’—is said to be the ‘paramount 

test.’” Calderon, 287 F.R.D. at 632. At the discovery stage, “all doubts are to be resolved in 

favor of the party seeking discovery.” Id. Thus, if there is “at least a ‘close question’ as to the 

managing agent status of a potential witness, doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing the 

deposition, with the final determination of whether the agent has the ability to bind the corporation 

to be left for trial.” Id.

The determination of an individual’s status as a managing agent is “determined as of the 

time of the deposition, not as of the time when the activities disputed in the litigation occurred.”

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 268 F.R.D. 45, 49 (E.D. Va. 2010) (citation 

omitted). “[C]ourts have made exceptions to this general rule, for example when a corporation 

terminates an officer in light of pending litigation, plans to rehire the individual in another 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1177 Filed 03/24/16 Page 6 of 9
7

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

position, or an individual continues to act as a managing agent despite no longer being an 

employee.” Rundquist v. Vapiano SE, 277 F.R.D. 205, 208 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Honda, 168 

F.R.D. at 541; E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 268 F.R.D. at 50–51 (“[t]he timing and 

circumstances of [defendant’s] reassignment or termination of its employees render the true status 

of the proposed deponents highly suspect, and allow for a strong inference that [defendant] is 

moving its employees around like chessmen, conveniently shielding them from [plaintiff’s] 

access.”)).

LG Chem argues that because Joe no longer had any responsibilities with LG Chem as of 

November 26, 2015, he did not qualify as a managing agent at the time of his proposed February 

2016 deposition and is therefore not subject to deposition by notice. Given LG Chem’s violation 

of the deposition protocol, the court will apply the managing agent test as of December 4, 2015, 

the date Plaintiffs first requested Joe’s deposition. See In re Lithium Ion, 2015 WL 5440789, at 

*6.

The first factor is whether Joe is invested with general powers allowing him to exercise 

judgment and discretion in corporate matters. The evidence relevant to this factor is conflicting. 

Although LG Chem asserts that “Mr. Joe was effectively relieved of his job responsibilities as of 

November 26, 2015,” (Ryu Decl. ¶ 7), Joe holds a new title, Executive Director in the Advisor’s 

Office, in the job of management consulting. Further, notwithstanding LG Chem’s representation 

that Joe is essentially performing no work for the company, he is listed as an “officer” of LG 

Chem, continues to receive full compensation and benefits, and will soon be appointed as an 

advisor for one to two years. LG Chem offered no evidence about the specific responsibilities of 

the advisor position, so it is not clear whether he will exercise judgment and discretion “respecting 

the subject matter of the litigation.” See Calderon, 287 F.R.D. at 634. Similarly, the fourth factor 

requires the court to examine Joe’s general responsibilities respecting the matters involved in the 

litigation. The parties provided little information about Joe’s responsibilities at any time during 

his employment, and again, LG Chem offered no evidence about the advisor position. 

Accordingly, these factors are neutral.

The second factor is whether Joe “can be relied upon to give testimony, at his employer’s 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1177 Filed 03/24/16 Page 7 of 9
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

//

//

request, in response” to Plaintiffs’ demand. LG Chem argues that this factor clearly weighs 

against a finding that he is a managing agent, since Joe has repeatedly refused to be deposed. 

However, it is not clear that Joe would have been unwilling to appear for deposition in December 

2015, had LG Chem properly attempted to secure his appearance in accordance with their 

obligations under the deposition protocol. LG Chem’s own failure to comply with the deposition 

protocol should not weigh in its favor in this dispute. The parties did not address the third factor, 

whether any persons are employed in positions of higher authority than Joe “in the area regarding 

which information is sought by the examination.” 

As to the “paramount test,” this question focuses on the extent to which Joe identifies with 

LG Chem’s interests as opposed to Plaintiffs’ interests. See E.I. DuPont, 268 F.R.D. at 50. As of 

December 2015, the court finds that Joe could be expected to identify himself with LG Chem’s 

interests. Joe had worked for LG Chem for over 25 years and still held the title of Executive 

Director and rank of officer with LG Chem. He was receiving full compensation and benefits 

from LG Chem and expected appointment to an advisor position with the company. Given that 

“all doubts [about managing agent status] are to be resolved” in Plaintiffs’ favor, the court finds 

that Joe was subject to deposition by notice pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) in December 2015. See 

Calderon, 287 F.R.D., at 632. Given the limited information before the court about Joe’s role and 

responsibilities at LG Chem, the court finds that his status as a managing agent is “at least a ‘close 

question’”; therefore, the final determination of whether Joe has the ability to bind LG Chem 

should be resolved at trial. See id.

Accordingly, the court orders LG Chem to produce Joe for deposition by March 31, 2016. 

If the deposition takes place in Korea, LG Chem shall pay for Plaintiffs’ reasonable travel costs to 

Korea for the deposition, including economy class airfare, lodging, and meals for up to two 

attorneys. LG Chem shall pay for all costs of the deposition, including court reporter and 

translation expenses, regardless of whether it takes place in Korea or in the United States. 

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel LG Chem to produce Jae Jeong Joe 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1177 Filed 03/24/16 Page 8 of 9
9

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

for deposition is GRANTED. LG Chem shall produce Joe in accordance with this order by March 

31, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 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 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1177 Filed 03/24/16 Page 9 of 9