Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 177 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`TWILIO, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TELESIGN CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.16-cv-06925-LHK (SVK)
`
`
`ORDER REGARDING TELESIGN'S
`FEBRUARY 27, 2018 DISCOVERY
`LETTER BRIEF
`Re: Dkt. No. 174
`
`
`
`
`
`This matter came before the Court pursuant to a letter filed by TeleSign Corporation
`
`(“TeleSign”) on February 27, 2018, requesting that the Court compel Twilio, Inc. (“Twilio”) to
`
`provide deposition dates for eleven fact witnesses. ECF 174. TeleSign further requests that the
`depositions be set in mid-March or early April, in advance of the May 7th close of fact discovery.
`Id. Twilio filed its response on March 1, 2018, indicating that it has now provided dates for eight
`
`witnesses who are current employees of Twilio and that it is “working with” the remaining three
`
`witnesses who are former Twilio employees. ECF 176.
`
`Having reviewed the papers, the COURT ORDERS Twilio, no later than 12:00 p.m. PST
`
`on Monday, March 5, 2018, to (1) confirm whether it is authorized to accept service of any future
`
`subpoena on behalf of the three former Twilio employees (Evan Cooke, Arthur Johnson, and
`
`Robert Fenstermacher); and if so, (2) to provide deposition dates. Once the subpoenas are served,
`
`if meet and confer between the parties is necessary, the COURT FURTHER ORDERS the
`
`parties to carry out those negotiations expeditiously and in good faith. To be clear, the deposition
`dates are to be confirmed on March 5th, notwithstanding that there may be further discussion over
`the scope of the depositions.
`
`The Court declines to order that any particular depositions take place some number of
`
`weeks before the close of the discovery. Should the need arise, either party may move for
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 177 Filed 03/02/18 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`additional discovery in accordance with the applicable rules and standing orders.1
`The papers clearly indicate that any issue as to coordination between 30(b)(1) and 30(b)(6)
`
`depositions is not yet ripe. The Court simply notes that there is no rule in either this or the trial
`
`court in this action requiring that a single witness be produced only one time. However, the rules
`
`of efficiency require, at a minimum, that the parties work together in good faith to address both
`
`depositions in the same session where possible.
`
`Finally, from the tone and content of the submissions, the Court is compelled to admonish
`
`both parties to be mindful of their respective obligations to raise, discuss, and timely respond to
`
`issues and to work together to complete all discovery obligations within the established time
`
`frame. See Northern District Civil Local Rules 1-5(n), 37-1.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: March 2, 2018
`
`
`
`
`SUSAN VAN KEULEN
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`
`1 This Court notes that any request for an extension of the trial schedule would have to be directed
`to the District Court.
`
`2
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`