AbCellera Biologics Inc. v. Bruker Cellular Analysis, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied AbCellera’s requests to depose Siddhartha Kadia and Mark Munch in a patent infringement action. The court held that Kadia, a nonparty residing outside the district, could not be compelled without a valid Rule 45 subpoena, and that AbCellera had not shown grounds to order his deposition. The court also found that Munch lacked unique first-hand knowledge relevant to the case and granted a protective order barring his apex deposition.

Holdings

1. A nonparty may be deposed only through a valid subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45; the court could not order Bruker Cellular to produce Kadia because AbCellera had not presented a valid subpoena or other basis for the requested relief.
2. An apex deposition may be disallowed or limited when the proposed deponent lacks unique first-hand knowledge of facts at issue; AbCellera failed to show that Munch possessed such knowledge, so his deposition was denied.
3. Bruker Cellular was entitled to a protective order barring Munch's deposition because AbCellera did not establish good cause to require the apex deposition or show that Munch had unique first-hand knowledge relevant to the case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court could order Bruker Cellular to produce nonparty Siddhartha Kadia for deposition without a valid Rule 45 subpoena.
2. Whether AbCellera could depose Bruker Cellular officer Mark Munch as an apex witness when AbCellera had not shown that he possessed unique first-hand knowledge of facts at issue.
3. Whether Bruker Cellular was entitled to a protective order barring Munch's deposition.

Disposition

other