Crescent Point Energy Corp. v. Tachyus Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRESCENT POINT ENERGY CORP., Case No. 20-cv-06850-MMC (AGT)

Plaintiff,

DISCOVERY ORDER

v. Re: Dkt. No. 131

TACHYUS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Tachyus has declined to provide a witness to testify on three of Crescent Point’s noticed 30(b)(6) topics. The Court considers the disputed topics below. * * * Topic 1: Any errors, difficulties, anomalies, or other problems You encountered while implementing the Software during the Backtesting Phase, which impacted the Software’s ability to provide Crescent Point with “feasible opportunities for meaningful financial upside.”

Dkt. 133 at 50. Tachyus contends that Topic 1 is overbroad. It is not. Topic 1 seeks testimony only on matters that would directly inform whether the Backtesting phase was a success. “[W]hether Tachyus’s Backtesting phase . . . was a success” is “the crux of the case.” Order, Dkt. 123 at 1. Tachyus also asserts that Topic 1 fails to identify with “painstaking specificity” the sub- jects to be covered in the deposition. Dkt. 131 at 3 (simplified). Some district courts have uti- lized a “painstaking specificity” standard in evaluating 30(b)(6) topics.…