Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. MEDIATEK, INC., et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., Case No. 23-cv-02774-PCP (SVK)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES; 9 v. SETTING DISCOVERY HEARING

10 MEDIATEK, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 329, 330, 332 11 Defendants.

12 Before the Court are three discovery disputes relating to impending depositions. In the 13 interest of time and mindful of the close of discovery, the Court determines that these matters may 14 be resolved without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court addresses all three disputes in this 15 Order and the attachments incorporated herein by reference. 16 17 Dkt. 329 : Scope of 30(b)(6) deposition of Realtek 18 The Parties argue over the number and scope of categories for a 30(b)(6) deposition. As to 19 the number, a party cannot cure an overly broad and burdensome 30(b)(6) notice with 138 topics 20 simply by re-organizing into 53 topics with subparts. Fortunately, it appears that the Parties have 21 reached agreement on at least 40 topics, bringing only seven topics to the Court for resolution. 22 Accordingly, the Court turns its attention to the issue of scope. 23 The Parties debate whether contention 30(b)(6) categories are appropriate. As with many 24 questions arising under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it depends: Deposition categories 25 directed to facts that support claims or defenses may be appropriate; categories directed to legal 26 conclusions or argument are generally improper. However, the appropriateness of any request 27 largely depends upon the facts of a particular case, such as the nature of the dispute and the status 1 No. 22-MD-03047-YGR (PHK), 2025 WL 470482 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2025); Yahoo!, Inc. v. 2 MyMail, Ltd., No. 16-cv-07044-EJD (SVK), 2017 WL 2177519 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2017). 3 Here FLS combines categories merely seeking facts with categories directed to legal 4 conclusions which improperly ask the Realtek witness “to make a law-to-fact application.” 5 Howard v. HMK Holdings, LLC, No. CV175701DMGJPRX, 2018 WL 3642131, at 6 *5 n.8 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2018), aff’d, 988 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2021). The Court addresses, and 7 where appropriate modifies, the categories in its ORDER in Attachment A hereto. To the extent 8 deposition categories are allowed, Realtek will prepare a witness to testify in accordance with its 9 obligations under Rule 30(b)(6). 10 11 Dkt. 330: Location of Realtek depositions 12 Defendant FLS has noticed a 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff Realtek and five individual 13 depositions, all to take place in San Jose, where Realtek filed suit. Realtek objects to bringing its 14 witnesses to California for deposition. FLS has indicated a willingness to take depositions 15 remotely. Together the Parties complain about time, expense and scheduling. The Court 16 strongly admonishes the Parties for using judicial resources to set depositions. This dispute 17 could have and should have been resolved by a good faith meet and confer conducted by 18 reasonable counsel to a practical end. 19 It is the common practice in this District that Plaintiff-affiliated witnesses are deposed in 20 the forum in which Plaintiff chose to litigate. See Fenerjian v. Nong Shim Co., No. 13-cv-04115- 21 WHO (DMR), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33419 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016). Realtek is the Plaintiff; 22 its argument that it somehow is not responsible for filing this suit is unavailing. Dkt. 330 at 6. 23 The Court is also mindful that FLS has noticed the depositions of at least five different persons, 24 two of whom Realtek does not intend to call at trial. Id. at 8. Lastly, Realtek raises a general rule 25 regarding visa requirements for witnesses from China, without identifying any specific impacted 26 witness. Id. at 10. 27 Accordingly, in light of all of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: Realtek’s ] produced for deposition in San Jose, EXCEPT that if any witness has a legitimate visa issue, they 2 ||} may be deposed by FLS remotely. Any noticed witness Realtek does not intend to call live at trial 3 may be deposed remotely. On the timing of a remote deposition, the Court is again incredulous 4 || that the Parties were unable to see their way to a reasonable compromise. Though timing may not 5 || be ideal, neither side has to work through their respective nights. The depositions can run 4-9 6 || p.m., Pacific Daylight Time, and can be conducted in two sessions if necessary. 7 In light of this Order, the Parties are to meet and confer — reasonable counsel with full 8 authority to negotiate and compromise — to finalize dates and times of the depositions. If the 9 || Parties are unable to agree, they will appear in person for a discovery hearing on Tuesday, 10 || April 28, 2026, at 10 a.m. Counsel appearing must be counsel who met and conferred and 11 have full authority to resolve the outstanding issues. Counsel must be prepared to remain at 12 || Court for the full business day to meet and confer as directed by the Court. If the Parties 13 || resolve the remaining conflicts and do not need to appear, they must inform the Court no later than 14 |} 12 p.m. on April 27, 2026.

5 16 Dkt. 332: Scope of 30(b)(6) deposition of FLS 17 The Parties dispute the scope of seven 30(b)(6) categories. The Court has evaluated the Zz 18 || Joint Submission, the relevant litigation history and the guiding law, and the Court’s ORDER is 19 || set forth in Attachment B hereto. 20 SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: April 21, 2026 22 23 Semen veut SUSAN VAN KEULEN 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28