In the case In re Sandisk SSDs Litig., No. 23-cv-04152-RFL (LJC) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2025), California Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Depositions, allowing Plaintiffs to reopen three depositions of Defendants’ employees due to Defendants’ belated production of documents that Defendants had previously designated as privileged, but limited the reopened depositions “to questions pertaining to documents produced after the original deposition, questions pertaining to testimony from other witnesses’ reopened depositions, and reasonable follow-up questions to the witnesses’ responses to those questions.”

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case, Plaintiffs’ filed a Motion to Reopen Depositions to reopen three depositions of Defendants’ employees in light of Defendants’ belated production of documents that Defendants had previously designated as privileged.

As Judge Cisneros stated: “There is no dispute that Defendants withdrew their privilege designations as to the vast majority of documents in dispute, and produced those documents after the witnesses at issue were deposed. Defendants also failed initially to provide a privilege log as required by Rule 26(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. And of the relatively small number of documents for which the parties were not able to resolve their privilege disputes, this Court has found that most of those also are not privileged (at least not in their entirety) and should have been produced (at least with redactions).”

Continuing, she noted: “Defendants dispute whether the documents at issue include sufficient relevant information, not previously known to Plaintiffs, to warrant reopening the depositions of these particular employees. But where Defendants have brought this situation on themselves by withholding documents from production without sufficient cause, the Court is not inclined to second guess Plaintiffs’ assessment of the potential relevance of the documents. Under Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ‘[t]he court must allow additional time [for depositions] consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.’…Defendants impeded these examinations by failing to produce documents subject to discovery prior to the depositions. The Court is inclined to grant Plaintiffs the opportunity they were previously denied to question the witnesses about those documents, at least some of which relate specifically to each of these witnesses.”

However, Judge Cisneros also said this: “This Order is intended to redress Defendants’ previous failure to produce documents, not to grant Plaintiffs a complete do-over of previous depositions. To that end, the reopened depositions shall be limited to questions pertaining to documents produced after the original deposition, questions pertaining to testimony from other witnesses’ reopened depositions, and reasonable follow-up questions to the witnesses’ responses to those questions. Plaintiffs’ failure to abide by those limits shall not be grounds to instruct a witness not to answer or suspend a deposition, but after the deposition has concluded Defendants may seek any relief that they believe appropriate for a substantial violation of this Order, potentially including the exclusion of evidence or attorneys’ fees for wasted time.”

Judge Cisneros also ruled on two other issues, denying Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions under Rule 37(d)(1)(A)(i) for Defendants unilaterally canceling a fourth deposition (this one, of its 30(b)(6) witness) to present this dispute over its scope to the Court, stating: “Under the circumstances, the Court finds Defendants’ conduct substantially consistent with Rule 37(d)(2)’s recognition that a party need not appear for a deposition while a motion for a protective order is pending.” She also granted Plaintiffs administrative motion to consider sealing exhibits, all but one of which Defendants sought to seal as well, ordering Plaintiffs to file that exhibit in the public docket.

So, what do you think? Are you surprised that the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Depositions? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.