a. The Court previously ordered Antrix to comply with any notices of deposition. See Order (docket no. 133). On February 15, 2022, Intervenors served on Antrix an amended notice of deposition. See Ex. 1 to Champion Decl. (docket no. 173-1). Antrix objects to holding the deposition in Seattle and contends that the deposition should take place in India pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad ("Hague Convention"). Intervenors argue that the deposition should take place pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Seattle or another mutually agreeable location within the United States. When determining where the deposition of a corporate agent should take place, the general presumption is that the deposition will occur at the corporation's principal place of business. See Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A., v. Akanoc Sols., Inc., No. C07-03952, 2008 WL 1766758, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2008). In this case, it is undisputed that Antrix's principal place of business is in India. The presumption that the deposition should take place in India, however, is not conclusive. See id. The Court may also consider factors such as the location of counsel for both parties, the number of corporate agents to be deposed, whether the deponent travels regularly for business purposes, the resolution of discovery disputes by the forum court, and the nature of the claim and the relationship of the parties. See id. Here, it is undisputed that local counsel are located in Seattle and national counsel are in New York. Given the ongoing discovery disputes in this action, holding the deposition in the United States would promote judicial economy in the event that any disputes arise during the deposition. The Court concludes that a majority of the relevant factors weigh in favor of holding the deposition in the United States. The Court also concludes that the deposition will be conducted pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 Therefore, Intervenors' motion to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Antrix is GRANTED in part. Within sixty (60) days of this Minute Order, Antrix shall designate a representative and produce that representative for deposition in Seattle, Washington, at the noticed address in accordance with Rule 30(b)(6), or at another location within the United States as agreed by the parties. Antrix's motion for a protective order is DENIED as it relates to the location of the deposition.
b. Antrix's motion for a protective order is GRANTED to the extent Intervenors seek to compel Antrix to provide a witness who is prepared to testify regarding documents and information in the hands of the Indian government or NewSpace. Antrix's request that the Court strike certain deposition topics is DENIED. The Court has reviewed the amended notice of deposition, see Ex. 1 to Champion Decl. (docket no. 173-1), and concludes that the topics are within the scope of this Court's prior Order, docket no. 133.
c. Intervenors' request for attorneys' fees under Rule 37 is DENIED.
d. Except as GRANTED, all other requested relief is DENIED.
Already registered ?