analyzing the apex doctrine as applying to 2 depositions of high-level executives
How later courts described this case
- analyzing the apex doctrine as applying to 2 depositions of high-level executives
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 Case No. 24-cv-01451-CRB (LJC)
8 In Re Mosaic LLM Litigation
ORDER RESOLVING DISCOVERY
9 LETTER BRIEF AT ECF NO. 127
10 Re: Dkt. No. 127
11
12
13
14 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Discovery Letter regarding whether the CEO
15 of Defendant Databricks, Dr. Ali Ghodsi, may be designated as a document custodian. ECF No.
16 127. Plaintiffs argue that Ghodsi is “uniquely situated to provide relevant information[,]” given
17 his leadership role and involvement in the acquisition of Defendant MosaicML. Id. at 1.
18 Defendants disagree, characterizing Plaintiffs’ arguments as mere “speculation that [Ghodsi] must
19 have unique information simply by virtue of serving as CEO.” Id. at 5. For the following reasons,
20 the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to designate Ghodsi as a document custodian.
21 Defendants frame their objections to Ghodsi serving as a custodian as being “on the basis
22 of Apex considerations.” Id. at 4. The apex doctrine “is essentially the courts’ recognition that
23 deposing high-level officers of large corporate and governmental entities imposes meaningful
24 burdens on those entities and witnesses, in part because in the absence of any restrictions, sitting
25 for depositions could quickly become a full-time job for leaders of entities that face extensive
26 litigation.” In re Uber Techs., Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., No. 23-md-03084-CRB
27 (LJC), 2025 WL 896412, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2025). The Court notes that the apex doctrine
1 Co., Ltd, 282 F.R.D. 259, 263 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (analyzing the apex doctrine as applying to
2 depositions of high-level executives); In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Priv. User Profile Litig., No.
3 3:18-MD-02843, 2021 WL 10282213, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2021) (finding that the apex
4 doctrine did not apply to a dispute regarding whether executives “should be added as document
5 custodians”). However, the parties’ stipulated ESI Protocol expressly provides that, if the
6 requesting party (here, Plaintiffs) requests to designate three additional document custodians, the
7 producing party may “object” to Plaintiffs’ selections “only on the basis of Apex
8 considerations[.]” ECF No. 61 at 2. The Court accordingly considers the appropriate apex
9 principles—namely, the executive’s access to relevant information, such information’s
10 uniqueness, and burden of production—in this decision. See Apple v. Samsung, 282 F.R.D. at 263
11 (rejecting the “two-prong test” of permitting apex depositions only if the deponent has “unique
12 first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge” and other “less intrusive discovery methods” have been
13 exhausted in favor of a “more nuanced equation” considering relevance, burden, unique
14 knowledge, and availability of other discovery methods).
15 Plaintiffs argue that Ghodsi “near undeniably has unique documents relevant to Plaintiffs’
16 vicarious infringement claim,” as he was the “architect, the engine, and the closer” of Databricks’
17 acquisition of MosaicML. ECF No. 127 at 2. In support of this contention, they cite to an
18 interview given by Ghodsi where he discussed meeting MosaicML’s CEO at a conference and
19 deciding to try to purchase MosaicML based on his believe that MosaicML’s generative AI
20 models were extremely valuable. Id. The Court finds it credible that, given Ghodsi’s role in the
21 acquisition, he will have documents regarding Databricks’ acquisition of Mosaic, which are
22 arguably relevant to Databricks’ knowledge of Mosaic’s alleged infringing activity and the
23 financial benefit Databricks believed it could obtain from Mosaic’s infringing activity. See In re
24 Glumetza Antitrust Litig., No. 19-cv-05822, 2020 WL 3498067, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2020).
25 Defendants try to distinguish this case from Kadrey v. Meta, where the plaintiffs sought to “add
26 Meta’s CEO based on produced documents indicating that he was a principal decision-maker on
27 acquiring the datasets at issue.” ECF No. 127 at 5. Plaintiffs cite to interviews where Ghodsi
1 datasets including Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. As in Kadrey v. Meta, Ghodsi’s role as a
2 “principal decision-maker” supports Plaintiffs’ position that he has relevant information. While it
3 is somewhat more speculative that Ghodsi has documents regarding Databricks and MosaicML’s
4 relationship post-acquisition, given Ghodsi’s role in acquiring MosaicML and integrating it into
5 Databricks, it seems highly plausible that Ghodsi has information regarding their ongoing
6 relationship.1 Judge Breyer’s recent decision to allow Plaintiffs to add a direct infringement claim
7 against Databricks strengthens Plaintiffs argument that Ghodsi will have relevant documents and
8 is an appropriate custodian. See ECF No. 129.
9 Defendants rely heavily on the argument that Plaintiffs have not shown Ghodsi will have
10 unique documents, contending that he does not have any documents relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims
11 that “would not be in corporate documents, [former Mosaic CEO] Dr. Rao’s documents, or
12 documents from the other eleven custodians.” ECF No. 127 at 4. But that there will be overlap
13 between Ghodsi’s custodial documents and the other custodians’ is not dispositive. “The idea that
14 responsive documents will necessarily be found in other custodians’ records is not sufficient to
15 defeat a search of [a custodian’s] files.” Shenwick v. Twitter, No. 16-cv-05314, 2018 WL 833085,
16 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018); see In re Uber Techs., 2025 WL 896412, at *2 (explaining, in the
17 context of depositions, that “an overemphasis on unique knowledge is inconsistent with otherwise
18
1 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs claim that Ghodsi has unique and relevant information is based
19
on speculation. See ECF No. 127 at 5. Certainly, a requesting party with limited access into a
responding party’s decision-making process and corporate structure often must engage in some
20
degree of speculation when choosing custodians. Given this information imbalance, the
responding party is generally best positioned to select custodians, as they know and can “identify
21
those individuals within its organization likely to have information relevant to the case.” In re
EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Antitrust Litig., No. 17-md-2785,
22
2018 WL 1440923, at *2 (D. Kan. Mar. 15, 2018); see The Sedona Principles, Third Edition, 19
Sedona Conf. J. 1, 118 (2018) (explaining, in the introduction to Principle 6, that “a responding
23
party is best situated to preserve, search, and produce its own ESI”). The ESI Protocol reflects
this general principle, as it allows the responding party to select their first ten document
24
custodians. ECF No. 61 at 2. Once the responding party has identified ten custodians, the
requesting party can identify three more, subject to limited objections. Id. Plaintiffs have
25
followed this protocol, and, based on the limited information available to them, made a selection
they believe will produce relevant information. While their decision to select Ghodsi inevitably
26
involved some degree of speculation, they “will have to bear the consequences” of making an
unwise selection. Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., 23-cv-03223 (N.D. Cal. Ot. 18, 2024), ECF No. 191
27
at 3.
1 common approaches to discovery and trial advocacy, where corroborating evidence and testing
2 || credibility through the testimony of more than one witness is often appropriate”). Moreover,
3 Ghodsi has a unique leadership role relative to other custodians. The majority of agreed-upon
4 custodians, identified at ECF No. 127-1, are members and directors of MosaicML’s research and
5 engineering teams. As Plaintiffs argue, Ghodsi, as CEO of the parent company Databricks, may
6 || well have unique information regarding “strategic-level LLM development commercialization,
7 including communications with Databricks’ board and investors.” ECF No. 127 at 2.
8 Defendants do not argue that designating Ghodsi as a document custodian would be unduly
9 || burdensome. As the parties agreed to initially identify up to thirteen document custodians, and
10 || Defendants do not contend that it would be uniquely burdensome to produce Ghodsi’s custodial
11 file, the Court has no reason to find that designating Ghodsi as one of the thirteen custodians
12 || would pose an undue burden on Defendants.
5 13 Plaintiff's request to designated Ghodsi as a document custodian is accordingly
|] GRANTED.
3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 Dated: June 26, 2025
1g 7
LIBA 4. CISNEROS
19 Liga CIs Magistrate Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28