Howington v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 DEBORAH HOWINGTON, et al., Case No. 24-cv-05684-VKD

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE JUNE 26, 2025 10 v. DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE NAMED PLAINTIFFS' DEPOSITIONS 11 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 70 12 Defendants.

13 14 The parties ask the Court to resolve their dispute regarding the location of named 15 plaintiffs’ depositions, as well as the sequence of those depositions. Dkt. No. 70. The Court finds 16 this dispute suitable for resolution without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 17 TSMC has asked plaintiffs to produce each of the named plaintiffs for an in-person 18 deposition in the Northern District of California. Dkt. No. 70 at 1. Plaintiffs object that the 19 named plaintiffs who live outside of this District should be deposed in or near their cities of 20 residence. Id. In the alternative, plaintiffs ask that TSMC be required to reimburse them for their 21 travel expenses to and from this District or be required to take their depositions remotely. Id. at 7. 22 Plaintiffs also object to TSMC’s demand that the named plaintiffs’ depositions occur in a specific 23 order. Id. at 5. 24 Plaintiffs generally must make themselves available for deposition in the forum district. 25 Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-cv-3078-JSC, 2015 WL 13423886, at *1 26 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2015). This general rule applies to named plaintiffs in class actions. See 27 Fenerjian v. Nong Shim Co., Ltd., No. 13-cv-04115-WHO (DMR), 2016 WL 1019669, at *2 1 depositions to proceed in a different location, considering the convenience of the parties and 2 counsel, the convenience of the persons to be deposed, the likelihood of discovery disputes arising 3 that would require resolution by the forum court, the burden and expense associated with a 4 particular deposition location, and other factors. See id. at *2; see also Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 5 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994), as amended (July 25, 1994) (“A district court has wide discretion 6 to establish the time and place of depositions.”). 7 Here, plaintiffs have not shown that requiring all named plaintiffs to appear for their 8 depositions in this District would impose an undue hardship on those who reside outside of the 9 District, nor have they shown that there are other exceptional or compelling circumstances that 10 warrant shifting the presumptive deposition location to places at or near their residences. Ms. 11 Howington and her counsel initially chose to file this action in this District on behalf of a putative 12 class encompassing all similarly situated people employed by TSMC anywhere in the United 13 States. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 42. Thereafter, each of the additional named plaintiffs asked specifically to 14 be named in the action rather than electing to remain as unnamed members of the putative class. 15 Dkt. Nos. 20, 37. In connection with these amendments, plaintiffs did not advise TSMC or this 16 Court that these new named plaintiffs wished to participate as representatives of the class only if 17 they were not required to travel to this District. Plaintiffs argue that requiring non-resident named 18 plaintiffs to travel here for their depositions would be unfair because these plaintiffs “have modest 19 means as compared to TSMC, a multi-billion dollar corporation.”1 See Dkt. No. 70 at 6. But 20 comparative wealth is not a relevant consideration. In fact, it is not even clear that any plaintiffs 21 will themselves bear any travel expenses related to these depositions. Defendants point out that 22 plaintiffs’ assertion of undue hardship “assumes that plaintiffs themselves—not their counsel—are 23 paying for [deposition travel] expenses,” and such an assumption is unsupported. Id. at 3. In 24 response, plaintiffs say only that requiring defendants to depose out-of-District named plaintiffs 25

26 1 Citing plaintiff Bernardo’s April 4, 2025 declaration, Dkt. No. 49-6 ¶¶ 10-16, plaintiffs specifically contend that Ms. Bernardo “has been unable to secure gainful employment, and no 27 longer has the means to travel to California for her deposition.” Dkt. No. 70 at 6. However, as 1 near their residences, grouped by state, “avoids undue burden and expense to both Plaintiffs and 2 counsel (regardless of who bears the costs).” Id. at 5 (emphasis added). While the convenience 3 of the parties and their counsel may be a relevant consideration, the Court agrees with defendants 4 || that plaintiffs’ proposal appears to merely shift the inconvenience and expense of named 5 || plaintiffs’ depositions from plaintiffs and their counsel to defendants and their counsel. See id. at 6 || 3. Relatedly, plaintiffs have not shown good cause to require defendants to take named plaintiffs’ 7 depositions by remote video conference means, or to pay for non-resident named plaintiffs to 8 || travel to this District for their depositions. 9 With respect to the sequence or order of named plaintiffs’ depositions, neither plaintiffs 10 || nor defendants have an absolute right to dictate the order of these depositions. See In re 11 Telescopes Antitrust Litig., No. 20-cv-03639-EJD (VKD), 2021 WL 1541692, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 12 Apr. 20, 2021); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3). Rather, the Court expects both parties to work 13 cooperatively to schedule named plaintiffs’ depositions to minimize delay and accommodate the 14 deponents’ genuine scheduling constraints. 15 For the reasons explained above, the Court orders named plaintiffs to make themselves 16 available for deposition in the District, absent stipulation of the parties to take a particular 3 17 deposition in a different location or by remote video conference. The Court expects the parties to 18 so stipulate if a witness demonstrates that he or she has a medical condition that makes it very 19 difficult or impossible for the witness to travel to this District, or if there is some other exceptional 20 || circumstance that makes it practically impossible for the witness to travel to this District for 21 deposition. See Dkt. No. 70 at 3 n.1. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: July 3, 2025 24 , ee □ 25 Vary ®, Qc Marche: Virginia K. DeMarchi 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28