Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05391/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05391-13/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed March 24, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MULTIVEN, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., a California 

corporation, 

 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________ 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

____________________________________/

No. C08-05391 JW (HRL) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

COUNTERDEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO QUASH OR MODIFY 

SUBPOENAS AND DEPOSITION 

NOTICES AND FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER 

[Re: Docket No. 129] 

Plaintiff Multiven, Inc. (“Multiven”), a provider of service and maintenance support for 

router and networking systems, sued defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), a leading provider of 

Internet Protocol-based networking technologies, alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act 

and related state claims. Cisco then countersued Multiven as well as Pingsta, Inc. (“Pingsta”) and 

Peter Alfred-Adekeye, a former Cisco employee and current Chief Executive Officer of Multiven 

and Pingsta. Cisco’s counterclaims allege copyright infringement, violation of the Computer Fraud 

and Abuse Act, false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, and related state claims. 

Cisco noticed the depositions of counterdefendants (and Adekeye’s wife, Deka Yussuf, who 

is also an officer of Multiven and Pingsta) to take place in San Francisco, California. 

Counterdefendants and Yussuf objected to the place of the depositions, and when they and Cisco 

/// 

Case 5:08-cv-05391-JW Document 168 Filed 03/24/10 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

For the Northern District of California 

could not agree on a location, filed the instant motion. Cisco opposes the motion.1 Pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds the matter suitable for determination without oral argument, and 

the March 30, 2010 hearing is vacated. 

DISCUSSION 

In late January 2010, Cisco noticed the depositions of Adekeye, Yussuf, and the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) representatives and custodian of records for Multiven and Pingsta. 

Cisco set these depositions for mid-to-late March 2010 in San Francisco. Adekeye and Yussuf say 

that in addition to their individual depositions, they will be the 30(b)(6) representatives and 

custodians of records for both Multiven and Pingsta. 

However, Adekeye and Yussuf also assert that they cannot enter the United States legally at 

this time to attend the depositions because they lack the appropriate visas. They currently reside in 

Switzerland, and according to their immigration attorney, they are awaiting a decision on their 

appeal of the U.S. government’s revocation of their former work visas. Their attorney avers that if 

Adekeye and Yussuf try to enter the United States while their appeal is pending, they may be unable 

to return to the United States at a later date. (Nattiv Decl.) 

Adekeye and Yussuf claim that they offered to appear for the depositions in a country where 

they may legally enter, such as Canada or a country in Europe where Cisco’s counsel has an office. 

They say that they also offered to appear by video conference. Cisco responded that it would take 

the depositions in London, but only if counterdefendants advanced it $50,000 to cover the expense. 

(Mot. 1; 3–4.) This proposal did not tempt counterdefendants. Instead, they filed the instant motion 

seeking an order that the depositions occur either in Switzerland or in another country to which they 

can travel without visa concerns. 

The bulk of the parties’ motion papers concerns counterdefendants’ request to take the 

depositions at issue in Switzerland. Nonetheless, following this court’s interim order requesting 

supplemental briefing concerning the costs of holding the depositions in Canada as well as the 

international law issues of conducting depositions outside of the United States (Docket No. 147), 

 

1

 Cisco also objects to Adekeye’s declaration because his counsel failed to attest that they had 

obtained Adekeye’s consent to file his declaration pursuant to this court’s General Order 45. It 

further objects to the lack of support in counterdefendants’ supplemental brief. For purposes of this 

motion, the court sustains Cisco’s objections. 

Case 5:08-cv-05391-JW Document 168 Filed 03/24/10 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

For the Northern District of California 

both parties now agree that Swiss law forbids these depositions from taking place in Switzerland 

absent prior authorization from the Swiss government. The parties also agree that Canada does not 

restrict the foreign depositions of willing witnesses, such as Adekeye and Yussuf in this case. (See 

Counterdefendants’ Supp. Br. 1–3; Cisco’s Supp. Br. 2–4.) 

Under these circumstances, the court finds good cause to modify the place of taking the 

depositions. “A district court has wide discretion to establish the time and place of depositions.” 

Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994). At the end of the day, Cisco wants 

testimony from Adekeye and Yussuf, and they are willing to provide it so long as they do not run 

afoul of U.S. immigration law. Prudence dictates that the court ensure that Cisco’s end goal—

obtaining their testimony—is met with the least burden to both sides. To that end, holding the 

depositions in Vancouver, Canada appears to be the best course of action taking into consideration 

cost, international law, and general practicality. 

Cisco recognizes that conducting the depositions in Vancouver may be appropriate (see 

Cisco’s Supp. Br. 2), but insists that counterdefendants should pay the difference between what the 

depositions would have cost in San Francisco and what they will cost in Vancouver. It claims that 

the difference is nearly $25,000—which includes the cost of flying two of its attorneys executive or 

first class to Vancouver, the cost of lodging them at the Four Seasons Hotel, and the differential in 

court reporter expenses. Cisco argues that this cost-shifting is appropriate because Multiven chose 

to file suit in California, and thus by extension, “its leaders” availed itself of this court’s jurisdiction. 

(Opp’n 16.) Yet Pingsta, and Adekeye the individual, are only in this lawsuit pursuant to Cisco’s 

counterclaims. The counterclaims are not alleged to be “compulsory.” Accordingly, the court does 

not find that it is appropriate to shift Cisco’s cost of conducting these depositions to the 

counterdefendants. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS IN PART counterdefendants’ motion. The six 

depositions at issue shall take place in Vancouver, Canada within two months of this order on dates 

of Cisco’s choosing following the parties’ good-faith meet-and-confer efforts. If Adekeye and 

/// 

Case 5:08-cv-05391-JW Document 168 Filed 03/24/10 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

For the Northern District of California 

Yussuf fail to appear in Vancouver as they have represented to this court that they are willing to do, 

then they will be subject to sanctions for failure to follow this court’s orders. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 24, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:08-cv-05391-JW Document 168 Filed 03/24/10 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

For the Northern District of California 

C08-05391 JW (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Brian Curtis Vanderhoof bvanderhoof@ropers.com 

Dan Keith Webb dwebb@winston.com 

Donald Ross Pepperman dpepperman@blechercollins.com, ljaramillo@blechercollins.com 

James C. Potepan jpotepan@ropers.com, jcecchini@ropers.com, tpierson@ropers.com 

Maxwell Michael Blecher mblecher@blechercollins.com 

Michael Sungwoo Kim mkim@rmkb.com 

Patrick Martin Ryan pryan@winston.com, DocketSF@winston.com, 

mthomasian@winston.com, ndelich@winston.com, 

tmontague@winston.com 

Thomas Michael O'Leary to'leary@ropers.com, aarriola@roprs.com, cscranton@rmkb.com, 

kkakiuchi@ropers.com, mkim@rmkb.com, tpierson@rmkb.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

 

Case 5:08-cv-05391-JW Document 168 Filed 03/24/10 Page 5 of 5