Wynne

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 3D SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.: 21-cv-1141-AGS-DDL

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE DEPOSITION TOPICS

13 v.

14 BEN WYNNE, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Judge Schopler’s order reopening discovery permits “each party . . . [to] take one

18 eight-hour deposition.” Dkt. No. 752 at 3. The parties exchanged Rule 30(b)(6) notices

19 containing their proposed topics of inquiry and, after meeting and conferring, reached

20 agreement regarding seventeen of Intrepid Automation’s (“Intrepid”) proposed topics and

21 twenty of 3D Systems’ proposed topics. Dkt. No. 773 at 2-3. The remaining topics are in

22 dispute. Id. at 3-53. The Court examines the disputes and sets forth the authorized topics

23 below.

24 I.

25 BACKGROUND

26 In ruling on the parties’ discovery-related motions, Judge Schopler determined that

27 “no one did anything worth sanctioning” but that discovery would be “briefly reopen[ed].”

28 Dkt. No. 752 at 1 (“February 12 Order”). Specifically, “the parties will have four weeks

1 to complete discovery, which will be limited to 3D Systems’ development of the PSLA

2 270, including its family of products, and the related damages request.” Id. at 3. “Each

3 party may ask three targeted interrogatories, make three requests for production of

4 documents or items, and take one eight-hour deposition.” Id. The February 12 Order

5 referred to the undersigned “any disputes or questions about these limitations as well as

6 any discovery extension requests.” Id.

7 On March 17, 2026, the undersigned issued an order regarding the scope of reopened

8 discovery authorized by the February 12 Order. Dkt. No. 769. In relevant part, the Court

9 concluded that the PSLA 270’s family of products, as used in the February 12 Order, meant

10 “the PSLA 270 and PSLA 380” and did not include “the large-format printer concept

11 discussed by the parties.” Id. at 2. Additionally, the Court concluded that reopened

12 discovery “must be tethered to the Intrepid trade secrets that Kuester allegedly observed at

13 Intrepid in 2021 and whether 3D Systems used any such trade secret information in the

14 development of the PSLA 270 or PSLA 380.” Id. at 5. Specifically, the trade secrets at

15 issue are (1) “Intrepid’s implementation of edge-blending technology” and (2)

16 “implementation of [Intrepid’s] multi-projector calibration techniques.” Id. Therefore, the

17 scope of discovery is limited to the influence of these two trade secrets in the development

18 of the PSLA 270 and the PSLA 380.

19 II.

20 LEGAL STANDARD

21 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding

22 any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional

23 to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the

24 amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’

25 resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues and whether the burden

26 or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

27 Although broad, “the scope of discovery is not unlimited.” Cabell v. Zorro Prods., 294

28 F.R.D. 604, 607 (W.D. Wash. 2013). The Court “must limit” irrelevant, overly broad,

1 unduly burdensome, cumulative or disproportional discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

2 Under Rule 30(b)(6), “upon the noticing of a corporation's deposition, it must

3 designate one or more persons to testify on its behalf.” Alvarado-Herrera v. Acuity, 344

4 F.R.D. 103, 106 (D. Nev. 2023), aff’d sub nom. Alvarado-Herrera v. Acuity A Mut. Ins.

5 Co., No. 222CV00438CDSNJK, 2023 WL 5035323 (D. Nev. Aug. 4, 2023). This

6 “imposes reciprocal obligations on proponent and deponent: the proponent must specify

7 which subject matters it intends to inquire into, and the deponent must take affirmative

8 steps to learn about those topics.” Coppel v. Sea World Parks & Ent., Inc., No. 21-CV-

9 1430-RSH-DDL, 2024 WL 4472352, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2024). The party noticing

10 the deposition must describe “with reasonable particularity” the matters upon which the

11 organization will be asked to testify. Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)). “For Rule

12 30(b)(6) to ‘effectively function, the requesting party must take care to designate, with

13 painstaking specificity, the particular subject areas that are intended to be questioned, and

14 that are relevant to the issues in dispute.’” Id. at *6 (citation omitted). “The corporation

15 must then prepare the deponent to fully and unevasively answer questions about the

16 designated subject matter.” Alvarado-Herrera, 344 F.R.D. at 106-07 (citation omitted).

17 “[C]ourts have repeatedly emphasized the practical constraints on the scope of a

18 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in that it is not feasible for a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to know the

19 intimate details of everything.” Id. at 107 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the assessment

20 of burden and proportionality in the context of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice involves

21 “a healthy dose of common sense.” Id. at 108. See, e.g. Apple v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No.

22 C 11-1846 LHK-PSG, 2012 WL 1511901, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012) (229-topic Rule

23 30(b)(6) notice “render[s] unworkable the obligation of the responding party to make a

24 conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons . . . and to prepare

25 them to fully and unevasively answer questions about the designated subject matter”).

26 / / / /

27 / / / /

28 / / / /

1 III.

2 DISCUSSION

3 A. 3D Systems’ Proposed Deposition Topics

4 3D Systems’ Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice contains thirty-seven topics. Dkt. No.

5 773-1. Intrepid objects to seventeen of those topics and raises two global objections which

6 “apply across the board to 3DS’s Topics.” Dkt. No. 773 at 3-19.

7 1. Global Objections

8 First, Intrepid objects to all topics “to the extent they call for expert testimony and

9 to the extent it would require Intrepid fact witnesses to address documents that are

10 unavailable to Intrepid personnel under the Protective Order.” Dkt. No. 773 at 3. Rule

11 30(b)(6) designees are not required to provide expert testimony, but they must “testify

12 about information known or reasonably available to the organization.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

13 30(b)(6). Whether a topic is more properly addressed by expert testimony as opposed to

14 Rule 30(b)(6) testimony is a question-by-question inquiry that the Court has considered in

15 its evaluation of the specific objections set forth below. To the extent a document is entirely

16 unavailable to Intrepid personnel under the Protective Order, it cannot be said to be “known

17 or reasonably available” to Intrepid, and thus falls outside the scope of Rule 30(b)(6). This

18 concern is also best addressed on a question-by-question basis and has been incorporated

19 in the Court’s findings below.

20 Second, Intrepid objects to all topics to the extent they “require Intrepid to prepare

21 a witness to testify about ‘all facts that…refute’ Intrepid’s contentions or theories.” Dkt.

22 No. 773 at 3. 3D Systems responds that “[t]he reference to ‘refute’ is not intended to ask

23 Intrepid’s witnesses to identify any facts that refute its theory, but is meant to clarify that

24 3DS may ask questions about facts that undermine or test the theory . . . .” Id. at 8. With

25 this clarification as to the meaning of “all facts that refute,” the Court does not find that

26 any proposed topic is improper on this basis alone.

27 / / / /

28 / / / /

1 2. Specific Objections

2 Intrepid objects to many of 3D Systems’ topics on the basis that they are outside the

3 scope of reopened discovery, duplicative, and disproportionate to the needs of the case. As

4 noted above, “[d]etermining whether a Rule 30(b)(6) notice is impermissibly excessive

5 blends the concepts of burdensomeness and proportionality,” which “incorporate a healthy

6 dose of common sense.” Alvarado-Herrera, 344 F.R.D. at 108. The Court finds that the

7 majority of 3D Systems’ topics are permissible as written, considering the practical

8 constraints on Rule 30(b)(6) depositions in general and the eight-hour time constraint on

9 this deposition in particular. 3D Systems adequately explains why Topics 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 18,

10 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 34 are permissible, and the Court overrules Intrepid’s objections.

11 These topics are permitted as set forth in 3D System’s Notice.

12 However, the Court finds that Topics 8 and 10 are overbroad as drafted. Topic 8

13 seeks “all facts concerning [the] destruction” of “any alleged Intrepid trade secret that

14 [Intrepid] contend[s] was shown to Kuester and subsequently used in the PSLA 270, 380,”

15 “including… any documents that would support such facts.” Dkt. No. 773-1 at 7 (emphasis

16 added). While the general topic of inquiry is within the scope of reopened discovery, the

17 requirement that a designee be prepared to testify as to “any documents that would support

18 such facts” is unduly burdensome. Accordingly, Topic 8 is permitted with the removal of

19 “and any documents that would support such facts.”

20 Topic 10 concerns “how the alleged Intrepid trade secrets or any other confidential

21 information that you contend was used in the manufacture of the PSLA 270/380 differs

22 from publicly known…techniques.” 773-1 at 8. As discussed above, the Court’s March 13

23 Order clarified that the scope of reopened discovery exclusively pertains to the use of two

24 of Intrepid’s asserted trade secrets in the development of the PSLA 270 and PSLA 380.

25 Therefore, “any other confidential information” is outside the scope of authorized

26 discovery. Topic 10 is permitted with the removal of “or any other confidential

27 information.”

28 / / / /

1 B. Intrepid’s Proposed Deposition Topics

2 Intrepid’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice contains forty-four topics. Dkt. No. 773-

3 2. 3D Systems objects to twenty-five of those topics and raises three global objections.

4 Dkt. No. 773 at 20-53.

5 1. Global Objections

6 3D Systems raises three global objections regarding portions of the “Instructions and

7 Definitions” portion of Intrepid’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice. First, 3D Systems objects to

8 Intrepid’s definition of “PSLA FAMILY OF PRODUCTS,” which includes the large

9 format printer discussed by the parties. Dkt. No. 773-2 at ¶ 4. Per the Court’s March 17

10 Order, the PSLA family of products is limited to the PSLA 270 and 380 and excludes the

11 large format printer. Accordingly, 3D System’s objection to paragraph four is sustained.

12 Second, 3D Systems objects to Intrepid’s instruction that its topics “include research,

13 feasibility work, precursor development efforts, and internal engineering initiatives

14 relating to multi-projection DLP printing systems that informed or contributed to the PSLA

15 FAMILY OF PRODUCTS, regardless of whether such work occurred before or after the

16 formal initiation of PSLA development.” Dkt. No. 773-2 at ¶ 7. 3D Systems argues that

17 this exceeds the scope of reopened discovery. Dkt. No. 773 at 21. The Court agrees. The

18 inclusion of all work “that informed or contributed to the PSLA FAMILY OF

19 PRODUCTS” is vague and would open discovery up to include matters far removed from

20 the authorized inquiry into the development of the PSLA 270 and 380. The objection to

21 paragraph seven is sustained.

22 Third, 3D Systems objects to Intrepid’s instruction regarding attorney-client

23 privilege and attorney work product. Intrepid states that for topics which encompass

24 privileged or information, the topic should be interpreted as seeking confirmation that

25 responsive information exists and is privileged, the basis for the privilege, and any related

26 non-privileged facts. Dkt. No. 773-2 at ¶ 8. 3D Systems argues that “a lay witness cannot

27 be expected to testify regarding the existence and application of the attorney-client

28 privilege or attorney work product.” Dkt. No. 773 at 22. Again, the Court agrees. The

1 objection to paragraph eight is sustained.

2 2. Specific Objections

3 a. Overruled Objections

4 3D Systems objects to multiple topics as outside the scope of reopened discovery.

5 As with Intrepid’s objections, the Court finds that many of the topics are appropriate in

6 light of the practical limitations on Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and the time permitted in this

7 case. Intrepid adequately explains why Topics 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 29,

8 30, and 32 are permissible, and the Court overrules 3D Systems’ objections. These topics

9 are permitted as set forth in Intrepid’s Notice.

10 b. Sustained Objections

11 Topic 23 seeks information regarding the “‘2-Pack’ project,” 3D Systems’ decision

12 to contract with Visitech, and all “research, engineering work, feasibility studies,

13 prototypes, or internal projects relating to multi-projection printing systems” that took

14 place after the 2-Pack project but before development of the PSLA family of products

15 began. Dkt. 773-2 at 9. This topic is overbroad and seeks information beyond the two

16 asserted trade secrets described in the Court’s March 17 Order. 3D Systems’ objection is

17 sustained.

18 Topics 38 and 39 ask whether 3D Systems agrees with particular contentions by

19 Intrepid and the factual bases for its agreement or disagreement. Dkt. No. 773-2 at 12. 3D

20 Systems argues that these topics improperly seek its current litigation positions and “is

21 effectively asking a lay witness to apply facts to the law” and would require disclosure of

22 counsel’s work product. Dkt. No. 773 at 45. The Court agrees. Leaving aside whether

23 “contention” deposition topics are permissible at all (given that Intrepid’s and 3D Systems’

24 notices both contain such topics),1 requiring 3D Systems’ Rule 30(b)(6) designee to testify

25

26

27 1 See, e.g., In re Soc. Media Adolescent Addiction/Pers. Inj. Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 22-MD-03047-

YGR (PHK), 2025 WL 470482, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2025) (so-called “contention” depositions under

28

1 to the reasons why 3D Systems agrees or disagrees with Intrepid’s contentions would be

2 unduly burdensome. Moreover, requiring the designee to, in effect, testify to facts

3 supporting 3D Systems’ defense would “make[] it extremely difficult to distinguish

4 between ‘facts’ (not protected) and the issue of why those facts have legal consequences,

5 which usually has a work-product (lawyer’s mental impressions) dimension.” United

6 States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., No. CV 11-5097 FMO (SSX), 2016 WL 11683593, at *9

7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2016) (quoting Fidelity Mgmt. & Research Co. v. Actuate Corp., 275

8 F.R.D. 63, 64 (D. Mass. 2011)). The objections to Topics 38 and 39 are sustained.

9 Topic 40 seeks the factual basis for 3D Systems’ contention that “medium-format

10 devices do not compete with large-format devices.” Dkt. 773-2 at 12. Intrepid argues that

11 this contention is relevant because of 3D Systems’ explanation of why it did not disclose

12 information about the PSLA 270 in the initial discovery period. Dkt. No. 773. While this

13 inquiry may have been relevant to the issue of sanctions, it is not related to the issues

14 authorized in reopened discovery. The objection to Topic 40 is sustained.

15 Topic 41 asks “whether, as of January 2021, 3DS believed that the 3D printing

16 market was growing.” Dkt. No. 773-2 at 12. The Court agrees with 3D Systems that this

17 topic is vague, ambiguous, and not sufficiently tied to the authorized subject of reopened

18 discovery. Dkt. No. 773 at 48. The objection to Topic 41 is sustained.

19 Topics 42, 43, and 44 seek information regarding 3D Systems’ process for

20 responding to Intrepid’s requests for production. Dkt. No. 773-2 at 12-14. These topics

21 constitute irrelevant and unduly burdensome “discovery about discovery.” See Watkins v.

22 Hireright, Inc., No. 13CV1432-MMA BLM, 2013 WL 10448882, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov.

23 18, 2013) (granting a request for a protective order against Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics,

24 noting that “while Plaintiff is entitled to information relevant to her claims, she is not

25 entitled to a 30(b)(6) deposition on the entire structure of the computer system that

26 generates that information”); ImprimisRx, LLC v. OSRX, Inc., No. 21-CV-1305-BAS-

27 DDL, 2022 WL 17824006, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2022) (“discovery on discovery . . .

28 generally is warranted only on a showing that a party's production has been insufficient or

1 deficient”) (citation omitted).

2 c. Topics Permitted with Modifications

3 Two of Intrepid’s topics are objectionable as written, but their defects can be cured

4 by minor revisions. Topic 3 seeks “the nature, extent of involvement, and the extent and

5 substance of the personal knowledge if any, of the following individuals in the development

6 of the PSLA FAMILY OF PRODUCTS.” Dkt. No. 773-2 at 5. The Court agrees with 3D

7 Systems that details regarding the personal knowledge of multiple individuals is beyond

8 the scope of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and is unduly burdensome. Dkt. No. 773. The

9 Court finds that Topic 3 is permissible with the phrase “and the extent and substance of the

10 personal knowledge if any” removed.

11 Topic 8 seeks “[t]he factual basis for any contention by 3DS that 3DS developed the

12 PSLA FAMILY OF PRODUCTS independently of any alleged Intrepid trade secrets.”

13 Dkt. No. 773-2 at 7. 3D Systems argues that this topic is improper “to the extent it seeks

14 information on more than the two technical trade secrets identified in Intrepid’s response

15 to 3D’s Interrogatory No. 1.” Dkt. No. 773 at 31. The Court agrees. Therefore, Topic 8

16 is permitted if “any alleged Intrepid trade secrets” is replaced with the two trade secrets

17 identified in the Court’s March 17 Order.

18 C. 3D System’s Fourth Amended Initial Disclosures

19 The issues raised regarding 3D System’s Fourth Amended Initial Disclosures are not

20 properly before the Court and are not considered at this time.

21 D. 3D System’s Request for a Continuance

22 3D Systems requests a continuance of the deadline for its Rule 30(b)(6) designee to

23 sit for deposition, from April 17, 2026, to April 23, 2026. Dkt. 773 at 19. It explains that

24 the individual best suited to testify is unavailable from April 13 through April 16. Id.

25 Intrepid does not oppose the request.

26 The deadline for both Intrepid and 3D Systems to complete their respective Rule

27 30(b)(6) depositions is continued to April 23, 2026.

28 / / / /

I IV.

2 CONCLUSION

3 For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS:

4 1. The Court overrules Intrepid’s objections and permits all of 3D System’s proposed

5 topics except for Topics 8 and 10, which are permitted only with the modifications

6 described above.

7 2. The Court sustains 3D Systems’ “global objections” as described above and sustains

8 objections to Intrepid’s proposed Topics 23, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44. The

9 Court permits Intrepid’s Topics 3 and 8 only with the modifications described above.

10 The Court overrules 3D Systems’ remaining objections and permits all other topics.

11 3. By not later than April 9, 2026, the parties must serve amended Rule 30(b)(6)

12 notices in accordance with this Order.

13 4. The parties must complete the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions on or before April 23,

14 2026.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated: April 7, 2026 _—

17 Tb hohe A

19 United States Magistrate Judge

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28