CTC Global Corporation v. Jason Huang et al

Supplemental BRIEF

C.D. Cal.February 7, 2019

DLA P IPER LLP (US) LOS ANGELES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WEST\285274062.2 PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT CTC GLOBAL CORPORATION’S LETTER BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CTC’S MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION EXAMINATION TAMANY J. VINSON BENTZ (SBN 258600) tamany.bentz@dlapiper.com AARON T. GOODMAN (Pro Hac Vice) aaron.goodman@dlapiper.com HECTOR E. COREA (SBN 318971) hector.corea@dlapiper.com DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 Avenue of the Stars Suite 400 North Tower Los Angeles, California 90067-4704 Tel: 310.595.3000 Fax: 310.595.3300 Richard J. Frey (SBN 174120) EPSTEIN BECKER GREEN 1925 Century Park East Suite 500 Los Angeles, California 90067 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant CTC GLOBAL CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CTC GLOBAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. JASON HUANG, an individual, RULONG CHENG, an individual; and JIANPING HUANG a/k/a JAMES HUANG, an individual, Defendant. CASE NO. 8:17-cv-02202-AG-KES DISCOVERY MOTION PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT CTC GLOBAL CORPORATION’S LETTER BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CTC’S MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION EXAMINATION JASON HUANG, an individual, Counterclaimant, v. CTC GLOBAL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Counterdefendant. Hearing Date: February 8, 2019 Time: 9:30 a.m. Discovery Cutoff Date: February 5, 2019 Pretrial Conference Date: April 29, 2019 Trial Date: May 7, 2019. Case 8:17-cv-02202-AG-KES Document 153 Filed 02/07/19 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:5107 DLA P IPER LLP (US) LOS ANGELES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WEST\285274062.2 -1- PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT CTC GLOBAL CORPORATION’S LETTER BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CTC’S MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION EXAMINATION Plaintiff and Counterdefendant CTC Global Corporation (“CTC”), hereby submits this Letter Brief in anticipation of the Court’s telephonic conference concerning CTC’s motion to compel Defendant Jason Huang for an additional three to four hours of deposition examination (“Motion”). On January 30th, CTC deposed Defendant Jason Huang for seven hours pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 30(d)(1). (Declaration of Tamany Bentz ISO Motion (“Bentz Decl.”), at ¶ 2.) At the conclusion of this initial deposition, counsel for CTC met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel to request a stipulation fr additional time to depose Defendant Huang. (Bentz Decl. at ¶ 2.) CTC’s request was based on Defendant Huang’s evasive and uncooperative testimony during the deposition that impeded and delayed the examination. (Id. at ¶ 2.) CTC also noted additional time was necessary to fairly examine Defendant Huang, who is the key witness and the primary Defendant in this action. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Counsel for Defendants rejected CTC’s request for additional examination time. (Id. at ¶ 3, Exhibit A.) The parties then agreed to resolve the dispute through the Court’s informal telephonic procedures. (Id.) CTC requests an order permitting CTC to examine Defendant Huang for three to four additional hours for three reasons: 1) Defendant Huang’s evasive conduct at his deposition impeded and delayed CTC’s examinatio; 2) CTC requires the additional time to fairly examine Defendant Huang on Defendant Huang’s product specification complaints supporting his counterclaims; and 3) CTC’s request would not work hardship on Defendant Huang. First, Defendant Huang’s uncooperative and evasive testimony at the deposition impeded and delayed the deposition. Defendant Huang repeatedly answered straightforward questions with lengthy nonresponsive narratives. (Bentz Decl. at ¶ 4, Ex. B at pp. 14:5-25; 16:24-18:24; 25:6-26:2; 67:22-69:14; 86:25-88:25). Even worse, Defendant Huang refused to answer basicquestions, and became highly argumentative when CTC’s counsel questioned him about his prior sworn testimony. (Id. at pp. 21:17-25; 22:11-13, 23:12-24:17; 26:1-25, 27:2-24; 28:1-25; 42:14-45:15; Case 8:17-cv-02202-AG-KES Document 153 Filed 02/07/19 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:5108 DLA P IPER LLP (US) LOS ANGELES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WEST\285274062.2 -2- PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT CTC GLOBAL CORPORATION’S LETTER BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CTC’S MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION EXAMINATION 62:17-64:25; 75:11-19; 79:13-80:4; 107:19-111:21; 118:5-122:1-12). These obstructionist tactics unnecessarily impeded and delayed CTC’s deposition of Defendant Huang. See Bontemps v. Sotak, No. 209CV2115MCEEFBP, 2018 WL 3455435, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2018), appeal dismissed, No. 18-16863, 2018 WL 6829677 (9th Cir. Oct. 17, 2018) (granting motion t compel additional deposition examination where deponent’s testimony was “combative and evasive . . . consistently interrupt[ing] questioning counsel, flatly refus[ing] to answer questions, and profess[ing] a lack of understanding as to the most basic terms.”). Second, additional time is necessary to fairly examine Defendant Huang. Due to Defendant Huang’s obstructionist conduct, CTC was not able to examine him on the most fundamental aspects of his counterclaims, ncluding the details of his “product specification” complaints that purportedly constitute protected activity necessary to support his retaliation claims. (Id at ¶ 5.) CTC must examine Defendant on his product specification allegations to adequately prepare its legal defenses. (Id.) Third, Defendant Huang’s claim that he would face hardship were he forced to attend an additional examination due to his China travel plans is unavailing. Defendant Huang previously claimed he was unavailable for his deposition in January due to his travel in China. (Bentz Decl. at ¶ 6.) This required CTC to move Defendant Huang’s original deposition date from January 18 to January 28th.1 (Id.) Inexplicably however, Defendant Huang returned from his China trip early and attended almost every deposition in this case during the time that he claimed he was unavailable. (Id.) CTC maintains Defendant Huang should be ordered to appear for an additional examination on the weeks of February 11 or the 18th at the latest, and that this request would not result in hardship to Defendant Huang given he can alter his China travel plans. Based on this and the aforementioned reasons, CTC respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion. 1 CTC later requested to move Defendant Huang’s deposition to January 30th. Case 8:17-cv-02202-AG-KES Document 153 Filed 02/07/19 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:5109 DLA P IPER LLP (US) LOS ANGELES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WEST\285274062.2 -3- PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT CTC GLOBAL CORPORATION’S LETTER BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CTC’S MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION EXAMINATION Dated: February 7, 2019 DLA PIPER LLP (US) By:/s/ TAMANY J. VINSON BENTZ TAMANY J. VINSON BENTZ AARON T. GOODMAN HECTOR E. COREA Attorneys for Plaintiff CTC GLOBAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation Case 8:17-cv-02202-AG-KES Document 153 Filed 02/07/19 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:5110