Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02934/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02934-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

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

HVAC TECHNOLOGY LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOUTHLAND INDUSTRIES,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

(Re: Docket Nos. 34, 35)

The parties ask the court to resolve two distinct discovery disputes in this patent 

infringement case.1

The first dispute is about Plaintiff HVAC Technology LLC’s obligation to produce 

documents.2 HVAC Technology “was formed in 2015 to serve as a legal vehicle to assert the 

patents and intellectual property of an individual, John Karamanos, against infringers.”

3

 This LLC 

was assigned the patents-in-suit by HVAC Technology, Inc., which in turn was assigned the 

patents by Karamanos, the named inventor.4 For his part, Karamanos had a right to sub-licenses to 

HVAC Manufacturing, Inc., whose President is none other than Karamanos and whose CEO and 

CFO is Karamanos’ wife Stella.5 Defendant Southland Industries argues that, by virtue of these 

 

1

See Docket Nos. 34, 35.

2

See Docket No. 34.

3 Docket No. 1 at ¶ 3.

4

See Docket No. 34 at 3.

5

See id.

Case 4:15-cv-02934-KAW Document 39 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

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

assignments, HVAC Technology is obligated to produce not only its own documents responsive to 

Southland’s requests, but also any responsive documents in the “possession, custody or control” of 

HVAC Manufacturing, Inc. and Karamanos personally.6 HVAC Technology disagrees.7

In the Ninth Circuit, trial courts applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 follow the “legal right”

standard: “[c]ontrol must be firmly placed in reality, and the court examines whether there is 

actual, not theoretical, control. Decisions within the Ninth Circuit have noted the importance of a 

legal right to access documents created by statute, affiliation or employment.”

8

 While no 

published decision located by the court or presented by the parties speaks directly to this issue, the 

court cannot figure how a threadbare patent assignment meets the Ninth Circuit’s legal right 

requirement. In particular, Southland has not identified anything in the language or context of the 

patent assignment here that further assigns to Plaintiff the legal right to any of the other entities’

documents. In the absence of any such legal right on the part of Plaintiff, Southland must pursue 

the documents at issue directly from HVAC Manufacturing, Inc. and Karamanos themselves.

The second dispute is about whether a party may issue multiple notices for 30(b)(6) 

depositions of the same corporation.9 HVAC Technology says yes; Southland says no.10 To be 

clear, HVAC Technology has noticed a list of topics for one 30(b)(6) deposition.

11 It intends to

notice more 30(b)(6) depositions on additional topics, and wants Southland to agree these 

depositions now.

12

 At this point, Southland’s position is that it will “consider the scope of

 

6

See id. at 4; Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. 

7

See id. at 4-5.

8

Verigy US, Inc. v. Mayder, Case No. 08-04330 RMW (HRL), 2008 WL 4786621, at *1 (N.D. 

Cal. Oct. 30, 2008). 

9

See Docket No. 35.

10 See id. at 2-5.

11 See id. at 5.

12 See id.

Case 4:15-cv-02934-KAW Document 39 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES

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

HVAC’s request for a second deposition if/when it makes that request.”

13

 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i) sets the number of depositions that may be taken without 

leave of the court or the parties’ stipulation at ten. Nothing in the Federal Rules or in any cases

located by the court or presented by the parties bars a party from using all ten depositions on 

30(b)(6) witnesses. However, Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1) is clear that a deposition is “limited to 1 

day of 7 hours.” Heeding those rules, a party may notice multiple 30(b)(6) depositions, but each 

notice must cover separate topics and the deposing party gets only one, seven-hour day of 

deposition per notice. That is, a party may notice multiple 30(b)(6) depositions on nonoverlapping topics, but it may not notice multiple 30(b)(6) depositions with overlapping topics.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

13 Id.

Case 4:15-cv-02934-KAW Document 39 Filed 04/08/16 Page 3 of 3