TeleCommunication Systems Inc v. Houserman

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 11, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00336
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC., 9 CASE NO. 2:19-cv-00336-RAJ-BAT Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 10 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION OF 11 LYNNE HOUSERMAN and MOTOROLA MSI CEO GREG BROWN 12 SOLUTIONS, INC., 13 Defendants.

14 The Court, having considered the parties’ LCR 37(a)(2) Expedited Joint Motion for 15 Protective Order pursuant to LCR 37(a)(2) (Dkt. 78), and declarations in support (Dkt. 78, 80, 16 and 81), hereby DENIES the request of Lynne Houserman and Motorola Solutions, Inc. (“MSI”) 17 to prohibit the deposition of MSI Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Greg Brown. 18 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), this Court has discretion to fashion orders to prevent 19 improper discovery. McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1256 (9th Cir.1999). Discovery may 20 be improper if it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” can be obtained from a more 21 convenient source, or if its burden cannot be justified in view of the likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 26(b)(2) (C). In general, discovery is permissible with respect to “any nonprivileged matter 23 that is relevant to any party's claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Courts should not bar a relevant ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING 1 deposition “absent extraordinary circumstances” as such a prohibition would “likely be in error.” 2 Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir.1979). In deciding whether to allow the 3 deposition of an “apex” executive, a court considers the extent of the individual's personal 4 knowledge and whether the testimony sought will be unreasonably duplicative. See Baine v. 5 General Motors Corp., 141 F.R.D. 332, 334 (M.D.Ala.1991); see also Six West Retail

6 Acquisition, Inc. v. Sony Theater Mgmt. Corp., 203 F.R.D. 98, 105 (S.D.N.Y.2001). 7 Here, Plaintiff has met its burden in demonstrating that Mr. Brown may have relevant, 8 unique personal knowledge of relevant facts; in particular, that Mr. Brown was involved in 9 MSI’s efforts to acquire Comtech’s and TCS’s 911 call routing and handling services, assets, and 10 executives. Defendants do not dispute that Mr. Brown has knowledge of the relevant 11 circumstances underlying Plaintiff’s claims. Rather, they merely assert he has less involvement 12 than other witnesses and that he is a busy man. However, this is not sufficient for preventing the 13 taking of a deposition. 14 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for an order prohibiting Mr. Brown’s deposition (Dkt.

15 78) is DENIED. 16 DATED this 11th day of September, 2020. 17 A 18 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA Chief United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING