LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C v. LegalOn Technologies, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE, Case No. 22-cv-07627-TLT (AGT)
P.C,
Plaintiff, DISCOVERY ORDER v. Re: Dkt. No.
LEGALON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.
This order resolves the disputes the parties raised in their April 27, 2023, joint statement. 1. Deposition Dispute Plaintiff has asked the Court to compel four depositions. As the party seeking to compel, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the requested discovery is relevant. See Ellis v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. 12-CV-03897-YGR (JCS), 2014 WL 1510884, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014). Plaintiff hasn’t met this burden. For three of the persons to be deposed, plaintiff has done no more than name them. Plain- tiff hasn’t explained how discovery from them would be relevant to “the issues raised in the motion to dismiss,” which is currently the permitted scope of discovery. Dkt. 48, Order. The fourth person plaintiff seeks to depose, Daniel Lewis, is defendant’s CEO. Plaintiff seeks to depose Lewis as a 30(b)(6) witness, and defendant isn’t opposed to the idea. See Dkt. 52 at 3 (admitting that “[a] 30(b)(6)…