Le v. Squires — Court refused to strike deposition or sanction USPTO over representative’s attendance

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Julie Le moved for discovery sanctions against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and asked the court to strike her deposition in its entirety. She argued that the USPTO had not notified her beforehand that one of its representatives would attend the deposition remotely through Microsoft Teams and asserted that she did not learn of the representative’s presence until the deposition ended.

The USPTO representative did not speak to Le during the deposition, and USPTO counsel identified the representative to the court reporter at the outset. Le nevertheless maintained that the representative should not have heard personal and sensitive testimony. She also argued at the motion hearing that the court reporter violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(5) by failing to state the representative’s name on the record.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied Le’s motion, holding that Rule 30 neither requires advance notice that a named party will attend an opposing party’s deposition nor requires the deponent’s consent to that attendance. The court also found no factual basis for sanctions because the representative attended silently, was identified to the court reporter, and the USPTO would in any event have access to the written deposition transcript.

The court further held that even if the court reporter failed to identify every person present as Rule 30(b)(5) requires, striking the entire deposition was unwarranted. Le did not challenge the transcript’s basic integrity or show that the alleged omission caused prejudice. The court additionally found that Le filed the motion in bad faith as part of continuing efforts to avoid discovery concerning her claims.

Key Takeaways

• Rule 30 does not require a party to obtain a deponent’s consent before attending the deposition.
• A court reporter’s alleged failure to identify everyone present does not justify striking a deposition absent prejudice or a challenge to the transcript’s integrity.
• The court characterized Le’s motion as a bad-faith continuation of earlier discovery resistance.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that procedural irregularities at a deposition do not automatically support the drastic remedy of suppressing the transcript. A party seeking that relief must identify legal authority for the remedy and show concrete prejudice, particularly when the disputed attendee is a named party that will receive the transcript.