Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Entrata, Inc. v. Yardi Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

June 20, 2018

ENTRATA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation, Defendant.

          Clark Waddoups District Judge.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          PAUL M. WARNER CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         District Judge Clark Waddoups referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).[1] Before the court are (1) Plaintiff Entrata, Inc.'s (“Entrata”) short form discovery motion for a protective order regarding the deposition of Preetam Yadav (“Mr. Yadav”);[2] (2) Entrata's short form discovery motion for a protective order regarding the deposition of David Bateman (“Mr. Bateman”);[3] (3) Entrata's short form discovery motion for a protective order regarding the depositions of William Chaney (“Mr. Chaney”) and Greg Lozinak (“Mr. Lozinak”);[4] (4) Defendant Yardi System, Inc.'s (“Yardi”) short form discovery motion to claw back Exhibit 473 and strike portions of a deposition transcript;[5] and (5) Yardi's short form discovery motion to compel production of technology assisted review (“TA R ”) information from Entrata.[6] The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the parties. Pursuant to Civil Rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will determine the motions on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).

         ANALYSIS

         Before addressing the above-referenced motions, the court sets forth the following general legal standards governing discovery. Rule 26(b)(1) provides:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “The district court has broad discretion over the control of discovery, and [the Tenth Circuit] will not set aside discovery rulings absent an abuse of that discretion.” Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Merrill Scott & Assocs., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1262, 1271 (10th Cir. 2010) (quotations and citations omitted).

         I. Entrata's Motion for a Protective Order Regarding the Deposition of Mr. Yadav

         Entrata seeks a protective order barring the deposition of Mr. Yadav. Entrata maintains that it is overly burdensome and expensive to require Mr. Yadav to travel overseas from India for a deposition. Entrata also asserts that Yardi has not articulated any need for his testimony or identified any topics upon which Yardi believes Mr. Yadav is more knowledgeable than other Entrata deponents. Entrata further argues that Yardi is seeking to depose Mr. Yadav to “backdoor” discovery in separate case pending between the parties in the Central District of California (“California Case”).

         For the following reasons, the court concludes that Entrata's arguments fail. First, the court is unpersuaded that requiring Mr. Yadav to travel from India for a deposition constitutes an undue burden or expense, considering the likely benefit from allowing the deposition to go forward. While the court recognizes that it may be costly for Mr. Yadav to travel overseas, the court concludes that the costs are proportional to the needs of this case, considering the amount in controversy and the parties' resources. Second, in Yardi's opposition to Entrata's motion, it has articulated an adequate and reasonable need for Mr. Yadav's deposition. Finally, as the court has stated before, it will not entertain allegations about what may or may not be occurring relative to the California Case. Instead, the court is focused on the parties' actions in this case.

         Accordingly, this motion is denied. Within thirty (30) days after the date of this order, Entrata shall produce Mr. Yadav for a deposition at a mutually agreeable date and time.

         II. Entrata's Motion for a Protective Order Regarding the Deposition of Mr. Bateman

         Entrata seeks a protective order barring the deposition of Mr. Bateman, who is the CEO of Entrata. Entrata argues that Mr. Bateman possesses no unique, relevant information to this case. Entrata also asserts, again, that Yardi is attempting to depose Mr. Bateman in an attempt to “backdoor” discovery in the California Case.

         For the following reasons, the court concludes that Entrata's arguments are without merit. First, the court is unpersuaded that Mr. Bateman, as Entrata's CEO, possesses no unique, relevant information to this case. Quite the contrary, the court concludes that Yardi has articulated an adequate and reasonable need for Mr. Bateman's deposition. Second, Entrata has failed to demonstrate, or even argue, that Mr. Bateman's deposition is disproportional to the needs of this case or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.