In re Mosaic LLM Litigation

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request to take five additional third-party depositions in the Mosaic LLM litigation. The Court ordered that a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Hanlin Tang be reopened for two additional hours concerning Topics 37 and 40, finding that Defendants had not adequately prepared the designee on matters reasonably available from documents and former employees.

Holdings

1. The proposed five third-party depositions were relevant but not proportional to the needs of the case because the request was untimely, potentially duplicative of discovery already obtained, and information was available from less burdensome sources.
2. A corporate party must make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate and prepare a knowledgeable Rule 30(b)(6) witness, using information reasonably available from documents, former employees, or other sources; Defendants had not adequately prepared Hanlin Tang on Topics 37 and 40.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs should be permitted to take five additional third-party depositions after the close of fact discovery.
2. Whether the alleged failure to adequately prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) witness justified reopening that deposition for limited additional questioning.

Disposition

other