Kageta Tech LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 2:23-cv-01632-WBS-CKD

Kageta Tech, LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Ford Motor Company in the Eastern District of California.
Ford answered the complaint and then moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Michigan.
Kageta moved to take an expedited deposition of a Ford employee, Murugan Sundaram Ramasamy, whose declaration accompanied Ford’s venue transfer motion.
Kageta argued that the deposition was necessary to challenge Ramasamy’s statements about the convenience and relevant activities underpinning the transfer request.
Ford opposed, contending Kageta had not shown good cause for expedited discovery and that Ramasamy’s declaration was not misleading.
The court considered whether extraordinary circumstances justified allowing discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to allow expedited deposition before Rule 26(f) conference	Needed to test Ramasamy’s venue statements	No good cause; no new relevant facts	Denied; no good cause shown
Whether Ramasamy’s declaration was misleading	Contains inaccurate/incomplete information	Plaintiff failed to identify falsehoods	Not shown by plaintiff
Whether expedited discovery would aid venue arguments	Would reveal facts supporting CA venue	No showing that discovery would help	Plaintiff failed to identify specific facts
Applicability of case law supporting venue discovery	Venue discovery is common and proper	Cited cases inapposite to current facts	Court found cited cases inapplicable

Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., 208 F.R.D. 273 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (court may allow early discovery for good cause)
Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1985) (articulates two-step § 1404(a) transfer analysis)
In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (change of venue in patent cases governed by § 1404(a))
Hayashi v. Red Wing Peat Corp., 396 F.2d 13 (9th Cir. 1968) (venue discovery may be granted to resolve factual disputes)