Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01370/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01370-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-01370-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE 

ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BLADEROOM GROUP LIMITED, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-01370-EJD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO TAKE ADDITIONAL 

DEPOSITIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 295

Presently before the court is administrative motion filed by Plaintiffs Bladeroom Group 

Limited and Bripco (UK) Limited (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) through which they seek the 

following relief: (1) an order increasing the number of deposition Plaintiffs may take from 20 to 

24, (2) an order extending the deadline to complete any additional depositions from June 30th to 

July 28, 2017, and (3) an order precluding Defendants Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Network 

Power Solutions, Inc., and Liebert Corporation (collectively, “Emerson”) from presenting the 

testimony of any witnesses at trial who have not yet been disclosed in response to interrogatories 

as knowledgeable about particular issues. Dkt. No. 295. Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) 

and Emerson have filed written opposition to the motion. 

Having reviewed the relevant pleadings, the court finds, concludes and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ three requests are governed by three different standards. Taking them in 

order, analysis of the request for additional depositions starts by observing that parties may 

generally take up to ten depositions without leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a). Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(A) permits upward alteration of this limit if the requesting party makes a 

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 301 Filed 06/12/17 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-01370-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE 

ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS

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

“‘particularized showing’ of the need for the additional depositions.” Century Aluminum Co. v. 

AGCS Marine Ins. Co., No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC), 2012 WL 2357446, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 

14, 2012). But at the same time, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if: (1) 

the information sought is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some 

other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (2) “the party seeking 

discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (3) 

“the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(2)(C). 

2. Plaintiffs’ second request to modify the deadline for completion of fact discovery 

requires them to demonstrate sufficient “good cause” for the relief. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(4) 

(“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”); Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-608 (1992). 

3. The third request to exclude trial witnesses appears to be governed by Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1) and 37(c)(1), given Plaintiffs’ reliance on Elion v. Jackson, 544 

F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008). Rule 26(e)(1) requires parties to “supplement or correct” disclosures 

and discovery responses “in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the 

disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information 

has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in 

writing.” Parties who fail in that duty become subject to Rule 37(c)(1), which states: “If a party 

fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not 

allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a 

trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” 

4. Consistent with the “particularized showing” standard that applies to a request for 

additional depositions, this court required any such motion to “detail who Plaintiffs propose to 

depose, explain why the depositions are necessary, and estimate when the depositions can be 

completed.” Dkt. No. 278. Plaintiffs have complied with the first requirement by identifying the 

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 301 Filed 06/12/17 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-01370-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE 

ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS

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

witnesses they seek to depose: individual employees of Facebook (Jay Parikh, T.S. Khurana, Ilker 

Esener, Joel Kjellgren and Bill Jia), and a third-party company, Alfatech. They have also 

complied with the third requirement by estimating the depositions can be completed by July 28, 

2017. 

5. Plaintiffs have not, however, made the showing necessary to comply with the 

second requirement. They provide some information in a footnote explaining topics on which 

Parikh, Khurana and Alfatech may have information. Plaintiffs also claim that Esener and 

Kjellgren possess knowledge concerning Facebook data center construction and design, and that 

Jia has knowledge about OpenCompute. But their motion also reveals that Plaintiffs have deposed 

or have noticed the depositions of no less than eight other individual Facebook employees, and 

Facebook’s opposition demonstrates that Plaintiffs have received significant discovery involving 

Parikh, Khurana, Esener, Kjellgren and Alfatech. Under these circumstances - where the court has 

doubled the deposition limit, a significant number of one party’s witnesses have or will be 

deposed under the current cap, and the requesting party has received extensive disovery - Plaintiffs 

must do more than merely identify witnesses with potentially relevant information. Indeed, the 

legal standard requires Plaintiffs to explain why the depositions of these additional witnesses 

would not be cumulative or duplicative, why the information could not have been otherwise 

obtained from another witness or through a different discovery method, and why the depositions 

are permissible under Rule 26(b)(1). This explanation is missing. 

6. Nor is the court convinced that potential surprise is a valid reason to increase the 

deposition limit, at least at this time. Plaintiffs want to avoid “the possibility that Defendants 

bring witnesses to trial to offer surprise testimony.” That “possibility” is not the sort of 

“particularized showing” justifying additional depositions. And in any event, there are still other 

mechanisms to account for “surprise” witnesses as trial approaches and the presentation of 

evidence becomes more concrete, which could include leave to take additional depositions of 

specific witnesses disclosed in the parties’ materials prior to trial.

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 301 Filed 06/12/17 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No.: 5:15-cv-01370-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE 

ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS

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

7. Furthermore, Plaintiffs invite misuse of Rules 26(e)(1) and 37(c)(1) through their 

premature request to limit Emerson’s witness presentation. Plaintiffs complain that Emerson 

listed too many witnesses in initial disclosures but identified too few knowledgeable ones in 

response to interrogatories. But without knowing who Emerson intends to call as trial witnesses -

which information need not be provided at this stage of the litigation - the court cannot assess 

whether Plaintiffs have made the precursor showing required for a Rule 37 sanction. Instead, 

Plaintiffs can renew this request in limine since by then all of the information necessary to the 

analysis will be available.

In sum, Plaintiffs’ motion fails to demonstrate either a need for additional depositions or a 

valid reason to limit Emerson’s trial evidence. Consequently, all of the requested relief is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2017

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 301 Filed 06/12/17 Page 4 of 4