Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05368/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05368-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Beilstein Gmbh
Counter-defendant
Beilstein-Institut Zur Forderung Der Chemischen Wissenschaften
Counter-defendant
MDL Information Systems, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEILSTEIN-INSTITUT ZUR FORDERUNG

DER CHEMISCHEN WISSENSCHAFTEN, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 MDL INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-05368 SI

ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF PATRICIA

ROUGEAU

On April 25, 2006, plaintiffs Beilstein-Institut zur Förderund der Chemischen Wissenschaften

and Beilstein GmbH (collectively, “Beilstein”) filed an application for order to show cause re contempt

based upon the failure of Patricia Rougeau to appear at her scheduled deposition. Defendant MDL

Information Systems, Inc. (“MDL”), subsequently filed a motion to stay any depositions in this matter

in light of plaintiff’s stated intention to amend its complaint. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court

finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and therefore VACATES the hearing

currently scheduled for June 2, 2006. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES both plaintiff’s

application and defendant’s motion. 

DISCUSSION

Rougeau is MDL’s former President and CEO. Her deposition was originally scheduled for

April 11, 2006. On April 2, 2006, however, plaintiff informed defendant that plaintiff intended to

amend its complaint. It later explained that it would likely add two causes of action, one for conversion

and one for copyright infringement. In response to this information, defendant requested that the

Case 3:04-cv-05368-SI Document 111 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Because the Court has not relied on the evidence that is the subject of MDL’s evidentiary

objections, the Court DISMISSES those objections as moot.

2

deposition of Rougeau be postponed until after plaintiff had amended its complaint. Plaintiff refused

to postpone the deposition. The parties met and conferred over the issue, but were unable to reach a

conclusion. On April 5, 2006, defendants informed plaintiff that Rougeau would not appear for her

deposition. Plaintiff then filed its application for an order to show cause; defendant filed its motion to

stay all depositions three days later.

The Court agrees with plaintiff that Rougeau did not have good cause for failing to appear at her

deposition. Nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a complaint be finalized

before discovery can proceed; indeed, such a rule would cripple the discovery process. Plaintiff was

entitled to depose Rougeau before it amended its complaint, with the caveat that Rougeau’s deposition

will not be reopened absent a showing of good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2). If plaintiff chooses

to depose Rougeau before it has made explicit all its causes of action, it bears the risk that her deposition

will be incomplete. 

The proceedings in this case are a prime example of why this rule is sensible. Rougeau’s

deposition would have occurred over a month ago if plaintiff had not gone through the courtesy of

informing defendants that it planned on amending its complaint. Because of defense counsel’s

insistence that plaintiff amend its complaint before Rougeau’s deposition, the deposition has now been

delayed five weeks. Further, if defense counsel refuses to stipulate to the new complaint, the deposition

will be delayed for at least another month while motions associated with plaintiff’s amended complaint

are pending. 

Rougeau lacked good cause to appear for her deposition. She is hereby ORDERED to appear

for her deposition before June 2, 2006. The Court DENIES plaintiff’s application for an order to show

cause, without prejudice. If Rougeau has not appeared for her deposition by June 2, 2006, plaintiff may

renew its motion with this Court. Defendant’s motion to stay discovery is DENIED.1

Case 3:04-cv-05368-SI Document 111 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES both plaintiff’s

application for order to show cause re contempt and defendant’s motion to stay discovery. Rougeau

shall appear for her deposition by June 2, 2006, or will face contempt sanctions from this Court.

[Docket Nos. 94, 97]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05368-SI Document 111 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 3