1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

PLASTECH HOLDING 

CORPORATION, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 14-cv-14049 

v. 

 HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

WM GREENTECH AUTOMOTIVE 

CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

_______________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF 

WITNESSES FOR DEPOSITION (Dkt. 83) 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Plastech Holding Corporation’s (“PHC”) 

motion to compel Defendant JAC Motors to produce eleven Chinese witnesses for depositions in 

the Eastern District of Michigan (Dkt. 83). The issues have been fully briefed and a hearing was 

held on June 14, 2016. As explained fully below, the Court denies PHC’s motion. 

I. BACKGROUND 

The Court has already provided a detailed factual background for this case. See Plastech 

Holding Corp. v. WM Greentech Auto. Corp., ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2016 WL 93423, at *1-*2 

(E.D. Mich. Jan. 8, 2016). For the sake of brevity, the following background is pertinent to the 

issues in the present motion. 

PHC initially filed this action on October 21, 2014 against only Defendants WM 

Industries Corporation, GreenTech Automotive Corporation, and GreenTech Automotive, Inc. 

(collectively “GreenTech”) (Dkt. 1). JAC Motors then sought to intervene in this matter (Dkt. 

24). PHC conditionally opposed JAC Motors’ motion to intervene because the PHC-JAC 

2:14-cv-14049-MAG-RSW Doc # 100 Filed 06/29/16 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 1624
2 

Motors contract contained a provision for mandatory arbitration in Hong Kong. See 1/13/2015 

Order at 2 (Dkt. 34); see also Framework Agreement at 11 (Dkt. 35-1). 

Following a telephonic status conference, JAC Motors “consent[ed] to the jurisdiction 

and forum of this Court, consent[ed] to service through counsel, and waive[d] any claim to 

arbitration relating to this dispute.” 1/13/2015 Order at 2. The parties also agreed to allow PHC 

to file an amended complaint naming JAC Motors as a defendant, id. at 3, which PHC did, see 2d 

Am. Compl. (Dkt. 35). According to PHC, it terminated initial efforts it had undertaken to 

initiate the arbitration in Hong Kong. See Pl. Reply at 2 (Dkt. 94). 

On April 22, 2016, PHC served JAC Motors with eleven deposition notices, each of 

which sought to have the depositions take place in Southfield, Michigan. See Dep. Notices, Ex. 

B to Pl. Mot., at 2-34 (cm/ecf pages) (Dkt. 83-3). According to PHC, JAC Motors informed 

PHC that it would not produce the witnesses for depositions in the United States, but offered to 

produce them in Taipei, Taiwan. Pl. Mot. at 8 (Dkt. 83); see also Def. Resp. at 4 (Dkt. 91) 

(claiming that JAC Motors offered to conduct the depositions via video conference or have its 

witnesses travel to Taipei for live depositions). This motion to compel followed. 

II. ANALYSIS 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1), the party serving a notice of 

deposition initially selects the location of the deposition. When a dispute concerning that 

location arises, it is within this Court’s discretion to designate the location of the deposition after 

having considered the facts and equities of that case. Lomax v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 238 F.3d 

422, at *3 (6th Cir. 2000) (table) (per curiam) (“District courts have wide discretion to limit 

discovery . . . including with regard to the designation of the time and place of depositions.”). 

Because there is a presumption “that the defendant will be examined at his residence or place of 

2:14-cv-14049-MAG-RSW Doc # 100 Filed 06/29/16 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 1625
3 

business or employment,” absent special circumstances, “a party seeking discovery must go 

where the desired witnesses are normally located.” Farquhar v. Shelden, 116 F.R.D. 70, 72 (E.D. 

Mich. 1987) (Binder, M.J.). This presumption “may be even stronger” when the deponent is 

foreign and “may be more inconvenienced by having to travel to the United States than a 

[deponent] who merely resides in another state or in another judicial district.” In re Outsidewall 

Tire Litig., 267 F.R.D. 466, 471 (E.D. Va. 2010) (citing Farquhar, 116 F.R.D. at 73). The 

presumption may be overcome by considering the factors of cost, convenience, and litigation 

efficiency. Six W. Retail Acquisition v. Sony Theatre Mgmt. Corp., 203 F.R.D. 98, 107 

(S.D.N.Y. 2001); MEMC Elec. Materials v. Balakrishnan, No. 2:12-CV-344, 2012 WL 1606053, 

at *3 (S.D. Ohio May 8, 2012). 

PHC raises several arguments that special circumstances exist in this case to warrant a 

departure from the presumption that the witness should be deposed at his or her residence or 

place of business. PHC first contends that it did not choose to bring suit against JAC Motors in 

this forum. Pl. Mot. at 9. Rather, PHC argues that JAC Motors chose this forum when JAC 

Motors sought to intervene, and PHC only consented to JAC Motors’ involvement when JAC 

Motors agreed not to challenge this Court’s jurisdiction and waive its rights to arbitration. Id. 

PHC further argues that the parties’ contract was signed in Michigan and JAC Motors’ 

“employees frequently traveled to Michigan during the course of the parties’ relationship.” Id. 

In response, JAC Motors claimed that, after PHC filed its lawsuit, “JAC Motors had no 

choice” but to intervene “to preserve and protect its substantial economic and legal interest in its 

distribution agreement with GreenTech and to vindicate its business reputation.” Def. Resp. at 2; 

see also id. at 7-10. JAC Motors also states that PHC has provided no authority for the 

2:14-cv-14049-MAG-RSW Doc # 100 Filed 06/29/16 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 1626
4 

proposition that intervention, by itself, constitutes a special circumstance to justify deviating 

from the general rule. Id. at 9-10. 

Underlying the presumption that the defendant will be examined at his residence or place 

of business or employment is the theory that the plaintiff is the one who brought the lawsuit and 

exercised the “first choice as to the forum,” unlike the defendant, who is “not before the court by 

choice.” Farquhar, 116 F.R.D. at 72. However, PHC’s argument concerning choice of forum is 

weakened in this case because JAC Motors is not, in fact, an intervener. The Court did not grant 

JAC Motors’ motion to intervene in this action. Instead, in accordance with the parties’ own 

stipulation and the second amended complaint, the parties resolved the issues presented in the 

intervention motion and JAC Motors was named as defendant. Technically, JAC Motors has the 

same party status as GreenTech, an original party. 

There is a twist in this case, in that JAC Motors did attempt to intervene in this matter; 

that tends to undercut its contention that it is not in this action by choice. Nevertheless, as 

practical matter, JAC Motors was faced with a difficult decision — either continue to be 

subjected to arbitration in Hong Kong, or try to directly protect its relationship with GreenTech, 

which would likely be impacted by this lawsuit. Given JAC Motors’ technical status as an added 

party and the economic realities that brought that about, JAC Motors’ aborted intervention does 

not overcome the presumption that the depositions should occur where the witnesses are located. 

Next, PHC argues that conducting the depositions in Taiwan would be unduly 

burdensome and expensive because all of the parties’ lawyers are located in the United States, as 

is PHC, and JAC Motors has not agreed to pay costs. Pl. Mot. at 10. PHC also challenges the 

presumption of conducting the depositions where the witnesses work or live, because depositions 

2:14-cv-14049-MAG-RSW Doc # 100 Filed 06/29/16 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 1627
5 

in mainland China are not legally possible. Pl. Mot. at 11.1

 And, according to PHC, because the 

witnesses would have to travel to Taiwan, the witnesses will only be slightly more 

inconvenienced by flying to the United States instead. Pl. at 11. 

In response, JAC Motors contends that requiring the depositions to take place in the 

United States would be more burdensome and costly. For instance, according to JAC Motors, 

Chinese citizens must secure a visa before traveling to the Unites States, the process of which “is 

often difficult, expensive, and time consuming.” Def. Resp. at 3; see id. at 11-12. Assuming the 

Chinese government grants the visa applications, JAC Motors claims that the travel would 

significantly inconvenience the witnesses, each of whom would travel approximately 24 hours 

each way and miss at least five days of work. Id. at 13. JAC Motors further argues that the 

expense of travel, lodging, and lost productivity amounts to a substantial economic impact on the 

witnesses, as opposed to the travel costs of PHC sending an attorney to Taipei. Id.; see also id. 

(citing Pogue v. The Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:14-CV-598-CRS-CHL, 2016 WL 2343898, at 

*4 (W.D. Ky. May 3, 2016)). 

In its reply, PHC states that it would have to send at least two attorneys to attend the 

depositions, and that JAC Motors and GreenTech would also have to send attorneys. Pl. Reply 

at 3 (Dkt. 94). PHC also claims that client representatives would have to attend, as would 

interpreters. Id. at 3-4. 

 

1

 There appears to be no dispute that the depositions could not legally take place at JAC Motors’ 

headquarters in Hefei, China, because such discovery is not permitted in mainland China. See 

Emerson Elec. Co. v. Suzhou Cleva Elec. Appliance Co., Ltd., No. 4:13-CV-01043 SPM, 2014 

WL 2986685, at *1 (E.D. Mo. July 1, 2014) (Mensah, M.J.) (recognizing that “discovery in 

mainland China is prohibited under the Hague Evidence Convention”). For that reason, JAC 

Motors proposed that the depositions take place in Taipei, Taiwan, which is approximately 500 

miles from Heifei, see Pl. Mot. at 11, and over 7,000 miles away from Southfield, Michigan, see 

Def. Resp. at 3. 

2:14-cv-14049-MAG-RSW Doc # 100 Filed 06/29/16 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 1628
6 

On balance, the Court finds that the equities concerning cost and convenience weigh in 

favor of JAC Motors. First, PHC already knew that, in light of the mandatory arbitration clause 

in the parties’ contract, a dispute with JAC Motors would require travel to Asia. To suggest that 

the cost associated with traveling to Taiwan to conduct depositions is now unnecessarily 

burdensome ignores that PHC had agreed to a far greater burden — full arbitration — that was to 

be assumed along with the burden of litigating against GreenTech in Michigan. Second, PHC’s 

claim that it would experience financial hardship in traveling to Taiwan is also insufficient to 

overcome the presumption that a defendant will be examined at his or her residence or place of 

business or employment. Mapal, Inc. v. Atarsia, No. 15-12159, 2016 WL 67603, at *3 (E.D. 

Mich. Jan. 6, 2016). Third, the inconvenience of eleven Chinese witnesses securing travel visas 

and missing several days of work outweighs the inconvenience of at least two of PHC’s 

attorneys traveling to Taiwan to conduct depositions. Even assuming that individuals making the 

trans-Pacific flight are unable to be productive during that time, the inconvenience to PHC 

affects the two attorneys, whereas the inconvenience to JAC Motors affects eleven witnesses. 

Finally, PHC argues for the first time in its reply that there would be greater difficult for 

the Court to supervise depositions if they take place in Taiwan. Pl. Reply at 4. Specifically, 

PHC contends that, given the time difference, “it would be nearly impossible [for the Court] to 

intervene in any [deposition] disputes.” Id. 

The Court finds PHC’s argument unavailing for three reasons. First, PHC does not offer 

any reason to believe that the Court’s involvement would be necessary. Second, if the attorneys 

are concerned about any anticipated problems, such as the propriety of subject matters or lines of 

inquiry, counsel can seek advance directives from the Court. And third, while it is true that 

Taipei is 12 hours ahead of Detroit, such that immediate feedback could be problematic, the 

2:14-cv-14049-MAG-RSW Doc # 100 Filed 06/29/16 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 1629
7 

attorneys can arrange a time to speak with the Court to discuss any issues that arose during the 

prior day’s depositions. Therefore, PHC’s arguments regarding judicial efficiency do not 

overcome the presumption that the depositions should occur where the witnesses are located. 

Accordingly, based on the facts of this case and a careful balancing of the equities, the 

Court denies PHC’s motion.2 Each party requested that, in the event the motion is denied, the 

Court should order that the depositions take place in Taiwan. See Def. Resp. at 16; Pl. Reply at 

7. Having denied the motion, the Court grants the parties’ request and orders that the eleven 

JAC Motors’ witnesses’ deposition take place in Taiwan. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the Court denies PHC’s motion to compel the production of 

witnesses for deposition (Dkt. 83). The depositions for the eleven JAC Motors witnesses shall 

take place in Taiwan. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 29, 2016 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 United States District Judge 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and 

any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on June 29, 2016. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 Case Manager 

 

2

 In its response, JAC Motors requests that the depositions be taken via video conference or to 

have PHC bear the costs associated with taking the depositions in the United States. See Def. 

Resp. at 13-15. Because PHC’s motion is denied, the Court denies these alternative requests as 

moot. 

2:14-cv-14049-MAG-RSW Doc # 100 Filed 06/29/16 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 1630