Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00226/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00226-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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

BABAK HATAMIAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00226-YGR (JSC)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

PERTAINING TO NUMBER OF 

DEPOSITIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 198

In this securities fraud class action, Plaintiffs contend that defendant Advanced 

Microdevices, Inc. (“AMD”) made misrepresentations regarding the launch of its “Llano” 

microprocessor, and in particular, misstatements regarding the Llano manufacturing plant’s chip 

yield. Now pending before the Court is the parties’ joint letter brief regarding a discovery dispute. 

(Dkt. No. 198.) Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an order increasing the presumptive limitation of ten 

fact depositions per party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A) to 28 fact depositions 

per party. Defendant proposes a more modest increase of 15 total fact depositions per side. 

Generally, courts do not grant leave for a party to take additional depositions until the 

moving party has exhausted the 10-deposition limit imposed by Rule 30(a)(2). See Authentec, Inc. 

v. Atrua Techs., Inc., No. C 08-1423 PJH, 2008 WL 5120767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2008)

(denying motion for leave to take additional depositions before plaintiff had taken a single 

deposition). Courts have departed from this “exhaustion rule” where there are multiple plaintiffs 

and defendants and the complexity of the case clearly warrants more than ten depositions. See, 

e.g., Del Campo v. Am. Corrective Counseling Servs., Inc., No. 01-cv-21151 JW (PVT), 2007 WL 

3306496, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2007) (in complex case with five plaintiffs and eleven 

defendants, finding it prejudicial to require plaintiffs to choose to take ten depositions before they 

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 199 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 2
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

knew whether they would be granted more). Here, Plaintiffs have taken only three of their ten 

noticed fact depositions to date, and Defendant has already agreed to increase the number of 

depositions to 15. While this case is complex, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing a 

particularized need for more than 15 depositions at this time. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 

without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request for 28 fact depositions. Each party may take up to 15 fact

depositions. Plaintiffs may renew their request for additional depositions after taking the first 15 

and establishing a particularized need for more depositions in light of those witnesses’ testimony.

This Order disposes of Docket Number 198.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-00226-YGR Document 199 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 2