Juan Soto v. CS Unitec, Inc., et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 7 8 JUAN SOTO, Case No. 24-cv-06624-NW (VKD)

9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE JANUARY 23, 2026 10 v. DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE DEPOSITIONS OF PORTAMIX AND 11 CS UNITEC, INC., et al., MILES SUCKLING 12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 51

13 14 On January 23, 2026, plaintiff Juan Soto unilaterally filed a discovery dispute letter asking 15 the Court to compel Portamix to produce a representative to testify regarding the topics in a Rule 16 30(b)(6) notice, and to produce Portamix’s employee, Miles Suckling, to testify as an individual. 17 Dkt. No. 51. According to Mr. Soto, Portamix failed to cooperate in the timely preparation and 18 submission of a joint discovery dispute letter, as required by the Court’s Standing Order for Civil 19 Cases. Id. at 1, 4. The Court ordered Portamix to file a response to Mr. Soto’s letter, and it did so, 20 on January 27, 2026. Dkt. No. 54. The Court finds this dispute suitable for resolution without 21 oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 23 On July 11, 2024, Mr. Soto filed this personal injury action in state court against Portamix 24 and several other defendants. Dkt. No. 1-1. Defendant CS Unitec, Inc. removed the action to this 25 Court on September 20, 2024. Dkt. No. 1. On December 3, 2024, Portamix answered the 26 complaint. Dkt. No. 11. In its answer, Portamix asserted “lack of personal jurisdiction” as a 27 defense, stating: not served with process within California, Portamix is not domiciled 1 in California, Portamix does not consent to jurisdiction in California, 2 and Portamix does not have sufficient “minimum contacts” with California that would otherwise support personal jurisdiction. 3 4 Id. at 5. 5 On May 12, 2025, the presiding judge entered a scheduling order setting a deadline of 6 November 28, 2025 for the close of fact discovery. Dkt. No. 30. At Mr. Soto’s request, the 7 schedule was amended, extending the close of fact discovery to February 11, 2026.1 Dkt. No. 32. 8 Mr. Soto says that he timely noticed the depositions of Miles Suckling and Portamix for 9 January 8 and 15, 2026, respectively, and repeatedly offered to reschedule the depositions for 10 alternate dates. Dkt. No. 51 at 1. He asserts that Portamix failed to provide any alternate dates for 11 either deposition and that neither Mr. Suckling nor Portamix appeared for deposition on the 12 noticed dates. Id. at 1-2. Mr. Soto seeks an order compelling Portamix to produce Miles Suckling 13 for deposition and to produce a designee for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Portamix before the fact 14 discovery deadline. Id. at 4. 15 Portamix’s principal objection concerns the timing and scope of the noticed depositions. 16 Portamix argues that Mr. Soto should only be permitted to take “jurisdictional discovery” at this 17 time and should not be permitted to take “merits-based discovery,” unless and until Portamix’s 18 not-yet-filed motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied. Dkt. No. 54 at 1, 2. In 19 addition, Portamix questions the propriety of Mr. Soto’s deposition notices, given that Portamix is 20 a New Zealand company and Mr. Suckling is a New Zealand resident. Id. at 4. 22 The Court denies Mr. Soto’s request for an order compelling the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition 23 of Portamix and the individual deposition of Miles Suckling, without prejudice. Mr. Soto’s 24 discovery dispute letter does not address the Court’s authority to compel the deposition of a 25 witness who resides in a foreign country. As Portamix correctly observes, the Court raised 26

27 1 On January 22, 2026, Mr. Soto filed an unopposed administrative motion to amend the 1 concerns about this issue in a prior order denying without prejudice Mr. Soto’s application for 2 || issuance of letters rogatory. See Dkt. No. 40. Mr. Soto must address the Court’s authority to 3 compel these depositions if he seeks a court order to that effect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b). 4 The Court observes, however, that Portamix’s objection to the timing and scope of 5 discovery—i.e., that only jurisdictional discovery, not merits-based discovery, should be 6 || conducted at this time—is misplaced. Nothing in the operative scheduling order limits fact 7 discovery to “jurisdictional discovery,” and Portamix has not been relieved of its obligation to 8 || participate in discovery. To the contrary, the presiding judge ordered that all fact discovery must 9 || be completed by February 11, 2026. See Dkt. No. 32. Portamix may not resist discovery on the 10 || ground it objected to personal jurisdiction in an answer filed more than a year ago and may file a 11 motion to dismiss at some point in the future. See, e.g., InfoSpan, Inc. v. Emirates NBD Bank 12 || PJSC, 903 F.3d 896, 901 (9th Cir. 2018) (discussing consequences of defendant’s failure to 13 request a ruling on the issue of personal jurisdiction). 14 Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Soto’s request for an order compelling the Rule 15 30(b)(6) deposition of Portamix and the individual deposition of Miles Suckling, without a 16 || prejudice. If the parties do not resolve their dispute, they must submit a joint discovery dispute 3 17 letter that complies with the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases. 19 Dated: February 6, 2026 20

Virginia K. DeMarchi 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28