1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAGETA TECH, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-01632-WBS-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, Kageta Tech, LLC, moves under Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Federal Rules of 18 Civil Procedure for leave to take the deposition of Murugan Sundaram Ramasamy. (ECF No. 31.) 19 For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied without prejudice. 20 I. Background 21 Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint alleging patent infringement against 22 the defendant, Ford Motor Company, on October 19, 2023. (ECF No. 24.) Defendant filed an 23 answer on November 2, 2023. (ECF No. 26.) On November 29, 2023, defendant filed a motion 24 seeking to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. 25 (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff’s response to the motion to transfer venue is currently due by January 31, 26 2024. (See ECF No. 30.) 27 On January 8, 2024, plaintiff filed the present motion for expedited discovery and moved 28 to shorten time for hearing the motion. (ECF Nos. 31, 32.) On January 9, 2024, the undersigned 1 granted the motion to shorten time and set a briefing schedule. (ECF No. 33.) Defendant opposed 2 the motion for discovery. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 36.) At the conclusion of 3 briefing, the undersigned vacated the hearing set for this matter and ordered the motion submitted 4 without appearance and argument. (ECF No. 37.) 5 II. Legal Standards 6 A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as 7 required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 8 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 26(d)(1). In the Ninth Circuit, courts assess whether there is “good cause” to permit discovery 10 before the Rule 26(f) conference. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 11 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002); U.S. v. Distribuidora Batiz CGH, S.A. De C.V., No. 07-cv-370- 12 WQH-JMA, 2009 WL 2487971, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2009). In considering whether good 13 cause exists, factors courts may consider include “(1) whether a preliminary injunction is 14 pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery request; (3) the purpose for requesting the expedited 15 discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how far in 16 advance of the typical discovery process the request was made.” Am. Legalnet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 17 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2009). 18 III. Discussion 19 As set forth, defendant moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Michigan and 20 plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to transfer venue is currently due January 31, 2024. “Change 21 of venue in patent cases, like other civil cases, is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” In re TS 22 Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Section 1404(a) sets forth a two-step 23 transfer analysis: the court first asks whether the action could have been brought in the proposed 24 transferee venue and then determines whether transfer will serve the convenience of the parties 25 and witnesses and will promote the interest of justice. Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 26 414 (9th Cir. 1985). 27 In the motion presently before the court, plaintiff seeks leave to depose Murugan 28 Sundaram Ramasamy on the information set forth in Ramasamy’s declaration supporting 1 defendant’s motion to transfer venue. (ECF No. 31 at 3.)1 According to the declaration at issue, 2 Ramasamy is a Ford employee since 2019 who currently has the title of Design Analysis 3 Engineer. (See ECF No. 27-2.) Plaintiff states defendant has refused to meet for a Rule 26(f) 4 scheduling conference, thereby opening fact discovery, and has declined to make Ramasamy 5 available for a deposition. (Id.) Plaintiff argues it has a good faith basis to believe many of the 6 statements in Ramasamy’s declaration are “misleading or at least incomplete, as would be 7 demonstrated on cross-examination.” (Id.) 8 Defendant argues plaintiff seeks a fishing expedition. (ECF No. 34 at 4.) Defendant 9 argues plaintiff fails to identify any relevant facts it intends to develop in a deposition that would 10 link this case to the Eastern District of California as more convenient than the Eastern District of 11 Michigan. (Id. at 4-5.) Defendant argues it did not mislead the court or omit relevant facts from 12 its motion and supporting evidence. (Id. at 7-8.) 13 In reply, plaintiff notes there is no dispute that venue is proper in this district and that 14 defendant bears the burden of showing Michigan is clearly a more convenient forum than this 15 district. (ECF No. 36 at 2.) Plaintiff argues it has demonstrated statements in the witness 16 declaration “were incorrect or at least misleading, and that development work was not confined to 17 southeast Michigan.” (Id.) 18 Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the requested expedited discovery. Plaintiff’s 19 motion does not adequately identify information it needs to support its venue arguments which 20 would be obtained through the requested expedited discovery, instead focusing on activities 21 occurring in Germany. (See ECF No. 31 at 5-7.) District courts find good cause for venue 22 discovery when there are indications such discovery could “change the result” on the issue, see 23 Kaia Foods, Inc. v. Bellafiore, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1178, 1187 (N.D. Cal. 2014), or when the court 24 finds it may be useful in resolving issues of fact presented by the motion, Hayashi v. Red Wing 25 Peat Corp., 396 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1968) (granting venue discovery to oppose a motion to 26 dismiss for improper venue); see also Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 18-CV-01518-JLS- 27 1 References to page numbers in the parties’ briefing refer to the page numbers assigned by 28 CM/ECF. 1 JLB, 2019 WL 1923087, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019) (permitting venue discovery where 2 “discovery may be useful in this matter”).2 3 It is not clear what issues of fact, if any, will be presented by the pending motion to 4 transfer venue because the motion is not briefed.3 The declaration information plaintiff disputes 5 in the present motion involves activities that allegedly occurred in Germany. Activities in 6 Germany do not favor venue in California. Plaintiff does not identify any concrete information it 7 needs from Ramasamy to support its venue arguments for this district. 8 Plaintiff also fails to show Ramasamy’s declaration contains incorrect or at least 9 misleading information. Plaintiff argues it has demonstrated that “development work was not 10 confined to southeast Michigan” (ECF No. 36 at 2), but Ramasamy’s declaration made no such 11 claim. (Compare ECF No. 27-2 at 9 (“The Accused Products were primarily designed, developed, 12 and tested at Ford’s world headquarters in Dearborn.”).) Under all the circumstances, plaintiff has 13 not shown good cause for expedited venue discovery. See, e.g., Olivia Garden, Inc. v. Stance 14 Beauty Labs, LLC, No. 17-CV-05778-HSG, 2018 WL 3392063, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAGETA TECH, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-01632-WBS-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, Kageta Tech, LLC, moves under Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Federal Rules of 18 Civil Procedure for leave to take the deposition of Murugan Sundaram Ramasamy. (ECF No. 31.) 19 For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied without prejudice. 20 I. Background 21 Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint alleging patent infringement against 22 the defendant, Ford Motor Company, on October 19, 2023. (ECF No. 24.) Defendant filed an 23 answer on November 2, 2023. (ECF No. 26.) On November 29, 2023, defendant filed a motion 24 seeking to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. 25 (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff’s response to the motion to transfer venue is currently due by January 31, 26 2024. (See ECF No. 30.) 27 On January 8, 2024, plaintiff filed the present motion for expedited discovery and moved 28 to shorten time for hearing the motion. (ECF Nos. 31, 32.) On January 9, 2024, the undersigned 1 granted the motion to shorten time and set a briefing schedule. (ECF No. 33.) Defendant opposed 2 the motion for discovery. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 36.) At the conclusion of 3 briefing, the undersigned vacated the hearing set for this matter and ordered the motion submitted 4 without appearance and argument. (ECF No. 37.) 5 II. Legal Standards 6 A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as 7 required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 8 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 26(d)(1). In the Ninth Circuit, courts assess whether there is “good cause” to permit discovery 10 before the Rule 26(f) conference. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 11 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002); U.S. v. Distribuidora Batiz CGH, S.A. De C.V., No. 07-cv-370- 12 WQH-JMA, 2009 WL 2487971, at *10 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2009). In considering whether good 13 cause exists, factors courts may consider include “(1) whether a preliminary injunction is 14 pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery request; (3) the purpose for requesting the expedited 15 discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how far in 16 advance of the typical discovery process the request was made.” Am. Legalnet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 17 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2009). 18 III. Discussion 19 As set forth, defendant moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Michigan and 20 plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to transfer venue is currently due January 31, 2024. “Change 21 of venue in patent cases, like other civil cases, is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” In re TS 22 Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Section 1404(a) sets forth a two-step 23 transfer analysis: the court first asks whether the action could have been brought in the proposed 24 transferee venue and then determines whether transfer will serve the convenience of the parties 25 and witnesses and will promote the interest of justice. Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 26 414 (9th Cir. 1985). 27 In the motion presently before the court, plaintiff seeks leave to depose Murugan 28 Sundaram Ramasamy on the information set forth in Ramasamy’s declaration supporting 1 defendant’s motion to transfer venue. (ECF No. 31 at 3.)1 According to the declaration at issue, 2 Ramasamy is a Ford employee since 2019 who currently has the title of Design Analysis 3 Engineer. (See ECF No. 27-2.) Plaintiff states defendant has refused to meet for a Rule 26(f) 4 scheduling conference, thereby opening fact discovery, and has declined to make Ramasamy 5 available for a deposition. (Id.) Plaintiff argues it has a good faith basis to believe many of the 6 statements in Ramasamy’s declaration are “misleading or at least incomplete, as would be 7 demonstrated on cross-examination.” (Id.) 8 Defendant argues plaintiff seeks a fishing expedition. (ECF No. 34 at 4.) Defendant 9 argues plaintiff fails to identify any relevant facts it intends to develop in a deposition that would 10 link this case to the Eastern District of California as more convenient than the Eastern District of 11 Michigan. (Id. at 4-5.) Defendant argues it did not mislead the court or omit relevant facts from 12 its motion and supporting evidence. (Id. at 7-8.) 13 In reply, plaintiff notes there is no dispute that venue is proper in this district and that 14 defendant bears the burden of showing Michigan is clearly a more convenient forum than this 15 district. (ECF No. 36 at 2.) Plaintiff argues it has demonstrated statements in the witness 16 declaration “were incorrect or at least misleading, and that development work was not confined to 17 southeast Michigan.” (Id.) 18 Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the requested expedited discovery. Plaintiff’s 19 motion does not adequately identify information it needs to support its venue arguments which 20 would be obtained through the requested expedited discovery, instead focusing on activities 21 occurring in Germany. (See ECF No. 31 at 5-7.) District courts find good cause for venue 22 discovery when there are indications such discovery could “change the result” on the issue, see 23 Kaia Foods, Inc. v. Bellafiore, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1178, 1187 (N.D. Cal. 2014), or when the court 24 finds it may be useful in resolving issues of fact presented by the motion, Hayashi v. Red Wing 25 Peat Corp., 396 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1968) (granting venue discovery to oppose a motion to 26 dismiss for improper venue); see also Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 18-CV-01518-JLS- 27 1 References to page numbers in the parties’ briefing refer to the page numbers assigned by 28 CM/ECF. 1 JLB, 2019 WL 1923087, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019) (permitting venue discovery where 2 “discovery may be useful in this matter”).2 3 It is not clear what issues of fact, if any, will be presented by the pending motion to 4 transfer venue because the motion is not briefed.3 The declaration information plaintiff disputes 5 in the present motion involves activities that allegedly occurred in Germany. Activities in 6 Germany do not favor venue in California. Plaintiff does not identify any concrete information it 7 needs from Ramasamy to support its venue arguments for this district. 8 Plaintiff also fails to show Ramasamy’s declaration contains incorrect or at least 9 misleading information. Plaintiff argues it has demonstrated that “development work was not 10 confined to southeast Michigan” (ECF No. 36 at 2), but Ramasamy’s declaration made no such 11 claim. (Compare ECF No. 27-2 at 9 (“The Accused Products were primarily designed, developed, 12 and tested at Ford’s world headquarters in Dearborn.”).) Under all the circumstances, plaintiff has 13 not shown good cause for expedited venue discovery. See, e.g., Olivia Garden, Inc. v. Stance 14 Beauty Labs, LLC, No. 17-CV-05778-HSG, 2018 WL 3392063, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2018) 15 (rejecting venue discovery where plaintiff did not explain what new facts would be unearthed and 16 defendants submitted declaration containing facts pertinent to venue which plaintiff did not 17 substantively dispute); Kaia Foods, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 3d at 1187 (denying request for venue 18 discovery in patent case where the movant “offered nothing ... that leads the Court to believe that 19 venue discovery will change the result on this [venue] issue”); Virginia Innovation Scis., Inc. v. 20 Samsung Elecs. Co., 928 F. Supp. 2d 863, 874 (E.D. Va. 2013) (denying “request for additional 21 discovery amount[ing] to nothing more than an attempt to unearth facts contrary to those sworn 22 facts presented to the Court”). In the absence of good cause shown for expedited discovery, 23 plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice at this time. 24 2 The undersigned agrees with defendants that plaintiff’s multidistrict litigation cases cited as 25 authority for the proposition that “Venue Discovery is Common and Proper” and “venue transfer motions are seldom considered before discovery closes” (see ECF No. 31 at 7-8) do not 26 persuasively apply to this case. 27 3 The presiding district judge, rather than the undersigned, will hear and decide the motion to 28 transfer venue. 1 IV. Order 2 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion under 3 || Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to take the deposition of 4 | Murugan Sundaram Ramasamy (ECF No. 31) is denied without prejudice. 5 | Dated: January 18, 2024 Card ht fa he 6 CAROLYN K DELANEY? 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 |} 8.kage23ev1632.130 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28