Published on:

Key Takeaways from Largan v. Motorola: A Lesson in Discovery Disputes and the Apex Doctrine

by

In a recent discovery dispute between Largan Precision Co. and Motorola Mobility LLC, the Northern District of California provided important guidance on two critical issues: the location of plaintiff’s depositions and the application of the apex doctrine for high-level executives.

The Location Battle: Home Court Advantage Prevails

The court’s ruling reinforces a fundamental principle: when you choose to file a lawsuit in a particular district, you better be prepared to show up there. Largan, despite being based in Taiwan, failed to demonstrate any “undue hardship or exceptional circumstances” that would justify conducting depositions in Taiwan rather than California.

The court was particularly unimpressed with Largan’s argument about their witnesses having to “travel thousands of miles and sit for a deposition in a foreign country with a translator.” As Judge Ryu pointed out, this is merely a “conventional inconvenience”–especially in patent litigation where international parties are commonplace.

The Apex Doctrine: Protection vs. Relevance

The more intriguing aspect of the ruling concerns the attempted deposition of Largan’s CEO, Adam Lin. This showcases the delicate balance courts must strike between protecting high-level executives from harassment and ensuring access to relevant testimony.

The court’s analysis provides a practical framework for evaluating apex depositions:

  1. First-hand knowledge is key–Lin had direct involvement in negotiating a relevant 2010 license agreement
  2. The knowledge doesn’t need to be “unique”–the fact that others were involved doesn’t automatically shield an executive
  3. Relevance threshold is relatively low–even if the technology is older, potential relevance to damages analysis is sufficient

The court also demonstrated how to balance these interests by imposing practical limitations–restricting Lin’s deposition to just two hours and allowing it to be conducted by video.

Largan Precision Co, LTD v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Case No. 21-cv-09138-JSW (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2024)

 

The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. For more information about this case, contact Stan Gibson at 310.201.3548 or SGibson@jmbm.com.