Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00400/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00400-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hypercom Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Verve, L.L.C., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. 04-CV-0400-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Hypercom's Motion to Compel Omron

Corporation to Produce Herb Kerner for Deposition (Doc. 55), filed on May 27, 2005.

According to Hypercom, Kerner was a central actor in the conspiracy alleged in their

complaint which they note is the heart of the jurisdictional issues before the Court. However,

this Court ruled on August 9, 2005 that the Court does, in fact, have subject matter

jurisdiction over this controversy; therefore, this issue is moot. As far as any additional need

Hypercom may have to depose Kerner, the Court concludes that Hypercom has failed to meet

the rather substantial burden necessary for the Court to grant such a motion. 

As the parties point out, Arizona courts are yet to rule on the standard for deposing

an opposing party's attorney in an underlying transaction that forms the basis of a lawsuit.

However, at least two California District Courts have held that a party may depose an

opposing party's counsel "only if he can show that: (1) no other means exist to obtain the

information than to depose the opposing counsel; (2) the information sought is relevant and

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR Document 68 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 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

1

 In fact, the Court notes that Hypercom even failed to submit a reply to the Defendants'

response to Hypercom's original motion

- 2 -

non-privileged; and (3) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case."

Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Cerf, 177 F.R.D. 472, 481 (N.D. Cal. 1998), citing

Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986); American Cas. Co. of

Reading, PA v. Krieger, 160 F.R.D. 582, 589 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (citing and following

Shelton). The party seeking the deposition, in this case Hypercom, bears the burden of

establishing that such a deposition is necessary. Krieger, 160 F.R.D. at 588. Omron

maintains that Hypercom has not met its burden under the Shelton test; therefore, its motion

must be denied. Furthermore, Omron states that Hypercom does not even address the third

factor of the Shelton test – that there is no other means by which Hypercom can obtain the

information that Kerner can provide during a deposition. The Court agrees. It is apparent

that Hypercom hasn't met the substantial burden necessary for this Court to compel the

deposition of Omron's counsel.1

 However, this is not to say that Hypercom will be unable

to demonstrate its need to depose Kerner at some future point in this litigation. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Hypercom's Motion to Compel Omron to Produce Herb Kerner

for Deposition (Doc. 55) is DENIED without prejudice..

DATED this 19th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR Document 68 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 2