281 F.R.D. 531
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- IP Plaintiffs move to compel discovery from objector Sean Hull about standing, basis for objection, and ties to objector counsel Bandas.
- Hull was served with a deposition subpoena after initial evasive service efforts and did not attend the March 6, 2012 deposition in Denver.
- Court elects to grant limited discovery: deposition not exceeding four hours in Denver and production of specified documents two days before deposition.
- Discovery scope relies on Rule 26(b)(1)’s broad relevance to Hull’s standing, objection bases, and relationships with Bandas and other objectors.
- Hull’s Response did not contest the substantive bases; Bandas is described as a ‘professional’/serial objector manipulating settlements.
- Court’s order directs deposition and production with continuing jurisdiction despite Hull’s notice of appeal and final approval of settlement
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Hull subject to discovery about standing and objections? | Hull is properly before the court and subject to discovery. | Hull challenges court authority due to appeal, not subject to further discovery. | Yes; Hull subject to discovery for standing and bases of objection. |
| Does the court retain jurisdiction to compel discovery after a notice of appeal? | Court retains jurisdiction to enforce post-judgment matters. | Appeal divests or limits post-judgment proceedings. | Court retains jurisdiction to compel discovery under the settlement’s ongoing administration. |
| Is Rule 30/45 appropriate for Hull’s deposition vs. non-party status? | Hull’s status supports deposition under Rule 30 or, if treated as non-party, Rule 45. | Issue over whether Hull is a party or non-party governs the subpoena. | Deposition under applicable rule with four-hour limit is authorized. |
| Is the scope of discovery properly limited to Hull’s standing, objections, and Bandas relationships? | Scope is narrowly tailored to relevant issues of standing and manipulation by Bandas. | Discovery should be broader or limited differently. | Scope limited to standing, bases for objection, and relationships with Bandas. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Itel Securities Litigation, 596 F.Supp. 226 (N.D. Cal. 1984) (courts preserve judgments; ancillary discovery to protect judgment integrity)
- Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (Rule 26(b)(1) breadth and discovery relevance)
- Del Campo v. Kennedy, 236 F.R.D. 454 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (relevance and scope of discovery in class-action context)
- McCubbrey v. Boise Cascade Home & Land Corp., 71 F.R.D. 62 (N.D. Cal. 1976) (absent class members as parties; deposition under Rule 30/45)
- Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234 (1934) (federal court equity jurisdiction to secure fruits of a judgment)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Keating, 186 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 1999) (district court retains authority to rule on amendments after notice of appeal)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (scope of discovery; relevance defined broadly)