govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_21-cv-01141-2

1 
21-cv-1141-LAB-DDL 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
3D SYSTEMS, INC., a California 
Corporation, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
BEN WYNNE; et al., 
Defendants. 

 
ORDER: 
 
(1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF 3D 
SYSTEMS INC.’S RULE 72(a) 
OBJECTIONS TO 
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 
MAY 1, 2023 DISCOVERY 
ORDER, [Dkt. 194]; and 
 
(2) OVERRULING THIRD-PARTY 
DEFENDANT EVAN 
KUESTER’S RULE 72(a) 
OBJECTIONS TO 
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 
JUNE 12, 2023 SCHEDULING 
ORDER, [Dkt. 240] 
INTREPID AUTOMATION, a 
California Corporation, 
Counter-Claimant, 
v. 
3D SYSTEMS, INC., a California 
Corporation; et al., 
Counter-Defendants. 
INTREPID AUTOMATION, 
Third-Party Plaintiff, 
v. 
EVAN KUESTER; et al., 
Third-Party Defendants. 
 
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 364 Filed 10/24/23 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 1 of 14
 
2 
21-cv-1141-LAB-DDL 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff 3D Systems, Inc. (“3DS ”) filed Rule 72(a) 
Objections (“Objections”) to Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner’s May 1, 2023 
Discovery Order which denied in part 3D S’s request to propound additional 
requests for production (“RFP”) beyond the twenty-five RFP limit previously 
imposed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher. (Dkt. 194). On June 26, 2023, 
Third-Party Defendant Evan Kuester filed Objections to Judge Leshner’s June 12, 
2023 Scheduling Order which imposed limitations on discovery for all parties 
pertaining to counterclaims and third- party claims against 3DS and Kuester. 
(Dkt. 240). 3DS and Kuester object to Judge Leshner’s decisions and request this 
Court reconsider their motions. The Court having read all papers filed in support 
and in opposition to both Objections, and heard the parties’ respective arguments 
on the May 1, 2023 Discovery Order at the hearing held on June 26, 2023, rules 
as follows. 
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
3DS originally filed this suit against Defendants Ben Wynne, Chris Tanner, 
Jamie Etcheson, Ivan Chousal, and Robert Mueller (collectively, the “Engineers”), 
as well as Intrepid Automation (“Intrepid”) (together with the Engineers, 
“Defendants”). Intrepid then filed counterclaims and third-party claims against 
3DS and third -party Keuster. (Dkt. 42, 199). On June 2, 2022, Judge Butcher 
issued a Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pre -Trial 
Proceedings. (Dkt. 28). Discovery has been ongoing in this case since. 
On August 12, 2022, following a disc overy hearing on 3DS ’s Motion to 
Compel Discovery Responses from Defendants, and in response to Defendants’ 
objections to being served voluminous production requests by 3D S, Judge 
Butcher ordered, in part, that “the parties may serve no more than 25 requests for 
production of documents; however, Plaintiff may serve any or all of its 25 requests 
for production of documents on each Defendant.” (Dkt. 39). Thereafter, 3D S 
amended its first set of RFPs and served those amended requests on Defendants. 
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 364 Filed 10/24/23 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 2 of 14
 
3 
21-cv-1141-LAB-DDL 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
But on November 29, 2022, 3D S again filed a Motion to Compel, this time 
complaining that “Defendants produced no documents and, as to the fourteen 
RFPs at-issue, responded with only objections or a limited agreement to produce 
specific documents.” (Dkt. 61 at 1). 3DS requested an order compelling 
Defendants to provide further responses to its amended RFPs . Defendants 
likewise filed a motion to compel, seeking an order compelling 3D S to provide 
responses to Intrepid’s first set of interrogatories. (Dkt. 62). On December 21, 
2022, Judge Leshner, who was later reassigned to this case, held a discovery 
hearing on the parties’ respective motions to compel, denying 3D S’s motion to 
compel responses to twelve out of fourteen RFPs and granting Intrepid’s motion 
to compel responses to nine out of ten of its special interrogatories. (Dkt. 74). 
On March 31, 2023, 3D S filed a Motion for Leave to Serve Additional 
Requests for Production of Documents on Defendants, including twelve additional 
requests on Intrepid, and five additional requests on the Engineers. (Dkt. 127). On 
May 1, 2023, following a hearing on the motion, Judge Leshner issued an order 
denying those requests, stating that the proposed requests “are overbroad in 
scope, seek information that is not tailored to a claim or defense and are 
duplicative of prior RFPs as to which the Court denied Plaintiff’s earlier motion to 
compel.” (Dkt. 167 at 1–2). 
On May 15, 2023, 3DS objected to Judge Leshner’s ruling, arguing that his 
decision to deny 3DS the opportunity to propound more discovery requests was 
clearly erroneous because he applied the wrong standard when analyzing its 
motion. (Dkt. 194). Defendants oppose 3D S’s Objections and request that this 
Court overrule the Objections because “Magistrate Judge Leshner correctly 
applied the particularized showing standard to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 
propound excessive discovery, correctly determined it had not been met, and 
correctly determined the proposed RFPs were not proportional under Rule 26 in 
any event.” (Dkt. 210 at 1). 
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 364 Filed 10/24/23 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 3 of 14
 
4 
21-cv-1141-LAB-DDL 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
In addition to the discovery issues related to the original claims, the parties 
also disputed the counterclaims and third-party claims against 3DS and Keuster. 
On September 1, 2022, Intrepid filed its counterclaims and third-party claims as a 
standalone document. (Dkt. 42). 3DS filed an ex parte application and a motion to 
strike or dismiss the counterclaims against it. (Dkt. 46, 48). Kuester separately 
moved to dismiss the third-party claims brought against him. (Dkt. 82). On May 4, 
2023, this Court denied 3DS’s ex parte claim as moot, granted in part 3DS’s and 
Keuster’s motions, and provided Intrepid an opportunity to file an amended 
Answer. (Dkt. 174). Two weeks later, Defendants filed an amended Answer and 
Intrepid amended its counterclaims and third-party claims. (Dkt. 199). Pending 
before this Court are 3DS’s and Kuester’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike the 
counterclaims and third-party claims within Defendants’ amended Answer . 
(Dkt. 214, 215). 
In light of the counterclaims and third-party claims, the parties filed a Joint 
Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order and Continue Pretrial Deadlines. 
(Dkt. 203). The parties agreed on new proposed dates for discovery, but had 
different positions on the amount of discovery that should be allowe d related to 
the counterclaims and third-party claims. (Id. at 6–13). For the third-party claims, 
Kuester requested: (1) Kuester allowed to take ten depositions and Interpid isn’t 
entitled to any further depositions; (2) Kuester and Intrepid limited to fifteen 
interrogatories (“ROG”); (3) Kuester limited to twenty-five RFPs and Intrepid 
limited to five additional RFPs; and (4) Kuester and Intrepid limited to fifteen 
requests for ad mission (“RFA”). (Id. at 6 –8). For the counterclaims, 3DS 
requested: (1) 3DS and Intrepid not allowed any new depositions, but allowed to 
reopen depositions for a limited amount of time to ask questions solely related to 
the counterclaims; (2) 3DS and Intrepid limited to five ROGs; (3) 3DS and Intrepid 
limited to five additional RFPs; and (4) 3DS and Intrepid limited to five RFAs. (Id. 
at 8–10). For the c ounterclaims and third-party claims, Defendants requested: 
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 364 Filed 10/24/23 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 4 of 14
 
5 
21-cv-1141-LAB-DDL 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
(1) 3DS and Kuester allowed to take five additional depositions together and the 
Defendants also allowed to take five additional depositions, and if a witness is re-
deposed that deposition should be limited to 2.5 hours; (2) 3DS and Kuester 
limited to five ROGs together and Defendants limited to serve five ROGs; (3) 3DS 
and Kuester limited to five RFPs together and Defendants limited to five RFPs; 
and (4) 3DS and Kuester limited to twenty -five RFAs together and Defendants 
limited to twenty-five RFAs. (Id. at 11–13). 
On May 31, 2023, Judge Leshner held a hearing to discuss the parties’ 
respective positions on the Joint Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order and 
Continue Pretrial Deadlines. (See Dkt. 217). After hearing the parties’ arguments, 
Judge Leshner agreed to modify the previously set deadlines and imposed the 
following limitations on discovery pertaining to the c ounterclaims and third-party 
claims: (1) 3DS allowed five additional depositions with a limit of three hours for 
anyone re-deposed and may propound up to five ROGs, five RFPs, and ten RFAs; 
(2) Intrepid allowed five additional depositions with a limit of three hours for 
anyone re-deposed and may propound up to five ROGs, five RFPs, and ten RFAs; 
and (3) Kuester allowed five depositions and may propound up to ten ROGs, ten 
RFPs, and twenty RFAs. (Dkt. 222). The parties may not alter the pretrial dates 
or exceed the discovery limitations without leave. (Id.) 
On June 26 , 2023, Kuester objected to Judge Leshner’s ruling, arguing 
Judge Leshner should’ve granted what was requested because limiting Kuester 
to five depositions, ten RFPs, and ten ROGs is substantially prejudicial and 
procedurally unfair . (Dkt. 240). Defendants oppose Kuester’s Objections and 
request that this Court overrule the Objections because Judge Leshner’s decision 
“was firmly grounded in [his] broad discretion to manage discovery in matters 
before him and his exceptionally close monitoring of the nature, extent and 
proportionality of the extensive discovery already taken by Kuester’s co-party and 
employer in this case, [3DS].” (Dkt. 253 at 1). 
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 364 Filed 10/24/23 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 5 of 14
 
6 
21-cv-1141-LAB-DDL 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
A party may object to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order 
within fourteen days after service of the order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Under 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a magistrate judge’s discovery order may 
be modified or set aside if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. “The 
‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies to factual findings and discretionary decisions 
made in connection with non-dispositive pretrial discovery matters.” Obesity Rsch. 
Inst., LLC v. Fiber Rsch. Int’l, LLC, No. 15-cv-595-BAS-MDD, 2017 WL 3335736, 
at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017) (quoting F.D.I.C. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 196 
F.R.D. 375, 3 78 (S.D. Cal. 2000) ). The clear error standard allows the court to 
overturn a magistrate judge’s factual determinations only if the court reaches a 
“definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Wolpin v. Philip 
Morris Inc., 189 F.R.D. 4 18, 422 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. 
Corp. v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. , 130 F.R.D. 507 (D.D.C. 1990)). An 
order is contrary to law, on the other hand, “if the judge applies an incorrect legal 
standard or fails to consider an eleme nt of the applicable standard.” PetConnect 
Rescue, Inc. v. Salinas, No. 20-cv-527-LL-DEB, 2022 WL 703836, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 
Mar. 9, 2022) (citing Hunt v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 872 F.3d 289, 292 (9th Cir. 1989)). 
“When reviewing discovery disputes, however, the Magistrate [Judge] is afforded 
broad discretion, which will be overruled only if abused.” Columbia Pictures, Inc. 
v. Bunnell, 245 F.R.D. 443, 446 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (internal citations and quotation 
omitted). 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. May 1, 2023 Discovery Order 
3DS seeks to serve seven additional RFPs on Intrepid and five additional 
RFPs on each of the Engineers related to the following: (1) Intrepid’s 
communications with third parties about obtaining financing or funding for Intrepid; 
(2) the Engineers’ communications sent or received while they were still employed 
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 364 Filed 10/24/23 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 6 of 14
 
7 
21-cv-1141-LAB-DDL 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
by 3 DS; (3) Intrepid’s communications with 3DS’s customers, vendors, and 
suppliers about Intrepid’s Epic and Valkyrie products and other equipment that 
3DS alleges contain its misappropriated trade secrets; (4) documents that support 
or are identified in Defendants’ responses to 3D S’s RFAs and second set of 
ROGs; and (5) all documents containing trade secrets that each of the Engineers 
had in their possession at the time they left their employment with 3DS. 
The parties dispute whether Judge Leshner applied the correct legal 
standard in rendering his decision on 3D S’s request to propound additional 
discovery requests.1 At the March 31, 2023 discovery hearing, Judge Leshner 
stated: “To obtain this relief, the Plaintiff must make a particularized showing why 
each additional proposed request for production is appropriate.” (Dkt. 194 -4 
at 4:18–21). Under that standard, Judge Leshner ultimately determined that “the 
parties made their choices as to how they wished to propound their RFPs[,] and 
having made that choice, I don’t see any particularized showing as to why the 
additional RFPs are appropriate.” (Id. at 7:6–9). 3DS argues in its Objections that, 
because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 doesn’t limit the number of RFPs a 
party may serve, and the twenty-five RFP limit was instead set by Judge Butcher 
in his original Scheduling Order, the standard that should’ve been applied by 
Judge Leshner in considering whether to allow the additional RFPs was the “good 
cause” standard, which applies when requesting a modification to a scheduling 
order. (Dkt. 194 at 8 (citing Youngevity Int’l, Corp. v. Smith, No. 16-cv-704-BTM-
 
1 Defendants also attempt to argue that 3D S waived its Objections because it 
noticed a hearing date for its Objections that was less than 28 days from the filing 
date. But hearing dates are set by the Court, and the decision to set a hearing 
date less than or beyond 28 days from the filing date is likewise up to the Court. 
Civ. L.R. 7.1(e)(1) (any motion or application requiring the Court’s ruling will 
require a minimum filing date of 28 days prior to the hearing “[u]nless the Court 
shortens time ”) (emphasis added). Regardless, the Court later continued the 
hearing date from June 5, 2023, to June 26, 2023 — more than 28 days from the 
date the Objections were filed—thus rendering this argument moot. 
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 364 Filed 10/24/23 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 7 of 14
 
8 
21-cv-1141-LAB-DDL 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
JLB, 2017 WL 6730078 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2017))). Defendants disagree with the 
application of a “good cause” standard, noting that the “particularized showing” 
standard applies “whenever a party seeks to exceed discovery limitations, not just 
when a party seeks to propound excess Rule 33 interrogatories.” (Dkt. 210 at 7). 
Neither party cites to persuasive case law identifying the correct standard 
to be applied under these circumstances. The cases cited by the parties discuss 
different standards in the context of requesting leave to propound additional 
ROGs, take additional depositions, reopen discovery, and extend deadlines set in 
a scheduling order. Compare Epicentrx, Inc. v. Carter, No. 20-cv-1058-JO-MSB, 
2022 WL 2196877, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2022) (“A party seeking to exceed the 
presumptive limit [of ten depositions] bears the burden of making a ‘particularized 
showing’ of the need for additional depositions.”) (alteration in original), and 
James v. Lee , No. 16 -cv-01592-AJB-JLB, 2020 WL 5203373, at *6 (S.D. Cal. 
Sept. 1, 2020) ( “Generally, a party requesti ng additional interrogatories must 
make a ‘particularized showing’ as to why additional discovery is necessary.”) , 
with Youngevity, 2017 WL 6730078, at *3 (applying the good cause standard to 
the plaintiff’s request to “modify the scheduling order to allow for discovery on new 
defendants and allegations contained in the FAC”). None of the cited cases state 
what standard applies when a party seeks to modify a court-imposed RFP limit. 
3DS hasn’t demonstrated that Judge Leshner’s decision to deny leave to 
serve additional RFPs was clearly erroneous or contrary to law . First, as 
Defendants assert, 3D S never argued its underlying motion under the “good 
cause” standard. (See Dkt. 127). In fact, its underlying motion cites no authority 
at all for its request to propound additional RFPs, and 3DS raises the “good cause” 
standard argument for the first time in its O bjections. See In re Midland Credit 
Mgmt., Inc., Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., No. 11-md-2286-MMA-MDD, 2020 WL 
6504416, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2020) (quoting Hendon v. Baroya, No. 05-cv-
01247-AWI-GSA-PC, 2012 WL 995757, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2012)) (“Motions 
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 364 Filed 10/24/23 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 8 of 14
 
9 
21-cv-1141-LAB-DDL 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
to reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling ‘are not the place for parties to make new 
arguments not raised in their original briefs.’”). 
Second, and most critically here, Judge Leshner’s ruling was made against 
the backdrop of the Rule 26(b) factors for determining what is permissible 
discovery, including whether: 
(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or 
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source 
that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less 
expensive; 
(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity 
to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or 
(iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted 
by Rule 26(b)(1). 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). At the April 25, 2023 discovery hearing, Judge 
Leshner engaged in a lengthy dialogue with counsel about many of the proposed 
RFPs and noted his specific concerns about certain RFPs being overbroad, 
outside the scope, or duplicative of previously served discovery requests. 
(Dkt. 194-4 at 4:7 –7:9). Judge Leshner also referenced specific terms, include 
“trade secrets” and “pitch decks,” the definitions of which he found to be too 
expansive. (See id. at 4:24–5:4, 11:2– 22). Based on the oral argument and 
briefings, Judge Leshner wasn’t convinced additional RFPs were warranted, so 
he denied 3DS’s motion for leave to propound additional RFPs. (Dkt. 167 at 1–2). 
3DS complains that Defendants have only had to respond to thirteen of the 
twenty-five RFPs served on Defendants thus far. (Dkt. 194 at 10). At the June 26, 
2023 hearing, counsel for 3DS represented that twelve RFPs were initially denied 
for being overbroad, which is why 3DS is now requesting additional RFPs to obtain 
the information it’s still lacking . ( See Dkt. 248 at 22:20–23:21). The record 
establishes that 3DS started off by serving numerous overbroad RFPs, prompting 
Judge Butcher to set a limit on the RFPs. When the case was reassigned to Judge 
Leshner, that limit remained in place and was the backdrop against which the 
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 364 Filed 10/24/23 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 9 of 14
 
10 
21-cv-1141-LAB-DDL 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
parties’ onslaught of discovery disputes were decided. 3DS didn’t take advantage 
of all twenty -five RFPs, but that’s 3DS own fault for drafting overly broad or 
duplicative RFPs. Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F. 3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[B]road 
discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery.”); see also Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) (“[T]he court must limit the frequency or extent of 
discovery otherwise allowed . . . [when] the discovery sought is unreasonably 
cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more 
convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.”). Moreover, 3DS concedes that 
it had an opportunity to take depositions of four of the five Engineers and will have 
an opportunity to take the deposition of the last individual. (Dkt. 248 at 30:12–13). 
3DS has failed to show why these additional RFPs aren’t overbroad or 
duplicative of other requests , has had an ample opportunity to obtain the 
information requested through other means of discovery, and will have an 
opportunity to depose the last individual Defendant. Moreover, it hasn’t shown that 
Judge Leshner’s May 1, 2023 Discovery Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to 
law. See CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc. , No. 08-cv-1987-GPC-MDD, 
2015 WL 4772644, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2015) (overruling objections to 
magistrate judge’s ruling denying leave to conduct discovery when there isn’t a 
demonstrated need for the discovery); see also Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 
17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD, 2018 WL 3861893, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2018) 
(affirming magistrate judge’s order findin g request for discovery irrelevant); 
Brinkley v. Monterey Fin. Serv s., LLC , No. 16 -cv-1103-TWR-WVG, 2021 WL 
6882428, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2021) (denying request to set aside magistrate 
judge’s order that determined special ROGs and RFPs were overly burdensome 
and the was no indication the requested information would differ in a meaningful 
and substantial way) . The Court AFFIRMS Judge Leshner’s May 1, 2023 
Discovery Order denying 3DS leave to propound additional RFPs and 
OVERRULES 3DS’s Objections. 
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 364 Filed 10/24/23 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 10 of 14
 
11 
21-cv-1141-LAB-DDL 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
B. June 12, 2023 Scheduling Order 
In the Joint Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order, Kuester proposed that 
he be permitted to take ten depositions afforded to him under Fed. R. Civ. P . 
30(a)(2); serve fifteen ROGs, which is ten fewer than allowed under Fed. R. Civ. 
P. 33; serve twenty-five RFPs, which is consistent with Judge Butcher’s limit; and 
serve fifteen RFAs. (Dkt. 203 at 7–8). Defendants proposed that Kuester and 3DS 
should coll ectively be limited to five depositions; five ROGS; five RFPS; and 
twenty-five RFAs. (Id. at 12–13). After oral arguments, Judge Leshner issued his 
order limiting Kuester to five depositions; ten ROGs; ten RFPs; and twenty RFAs. 
(Dkt. 222 at 4–5). Kuester objects, claiming he is entitled to ten depositions; fifteen 
ROGs; and twenty -five RFPs because granting him less is prejudicial and 
procedurally unfair. (Dkt. 240 at 12–16). 
Courts have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of Seattle, 
863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). When district courts enter scheduling orders, 
the scheduling order may “modify the extent of discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). 
Rule 26(b)(2)(C) requires the court, on motion or on its own, to limit the frequency 
or extent discovery otherwise allowed by the rules when the discovery sought is 
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, can be obtained from some other source, 
the party already had ample opportunity to obtain the information, or the discovery 
is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). “The 
recent amendments to the discovery rules are meant to curb the culture of 
scorched earth litigation tactics by emphasizing the importance of ensuring that 
the discovery process ‘provide[s] parties with efficient access to what is needed 
to prove a claim or defense, but eliminate unnecessary and wasteful discovery.’” 
United States v. 400 Acres of Land , No. 15 -cv-01743-MMD-NJK, 2017 WL 
955187, at *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 10, 2017) (alteration in or iginal) (quoting Roberts v. 
Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 312 F.R.D. 594, 603–04 (D. Nev. 2016)). 
Kuester isn ’t entitled to more discovery than Judge Leshner granted. 
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 364 Filed 10/24/23 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 11 of 14
 
12 
21-cv-1141-LAB-DDL 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Kuester vaguely argues he’s entitled to ten depositions to defend himself and 
allowing him five depositions would preclude him from taking depositions of all the 
named Defendants , Defendants’ thirty-eight witnesses , and others . (Dkt. 240 
at 12; 263 at 4 ). However, other than there being a potential to take more than 
five depositions, he doesn’t provide any indication that he would in fact use the 
five depositions granted to him. Thykkuttathil v. Keese , 294 F.R.D. 597, 600 
(W.D. Wash. 2013) (“Parties should ordinarily exhaust their allowed number of 
depositions before making a request for additional.”). Kuester also notes the 
Federal Rules afford each side ten depositions, ( id.), but a party isn’t always 
granted a minimum of ten depositions, see Donohoe v. Bonneville Int’l Corp., 602 
F. Supp. 2d 1, 4 n.2 (D.D.C. 2009), and the 1993 Advisory Committee Notes 
specify that “in some cases the ten-per-side limit should be reduced,” Fed. R. Civ. 
P. 30(a)(2)(A) Advisory Comm. Note to 1993 Amend. Here, Judge Leshner was 
well aware of the voluminous discovery the parties had conducted, and, with this 
in mind, determined that it was best to limit the number of depositions Kuester 
could take regarding the third-party claims at the outset. 
Similarly, Kuester wasn’t entitled to his requested number of ROGs or RFPs. 
Kuester argues the prejudicial effects of the discovery restrictions became more 
apparent while drafting his discovery requests because he would’ve served twenty 
RFPs and fifteen ROGs. ( Dkt. 240 at 4–10). However, Judge Leshner limited 
Kuster’s discovery with the understanding that the claim against Kuester is “that 
he pretended to be interested in a job at Intrepid, came in, signed a nondisclosure 
agreement, was shown some trade secrets, and then backed out, and allegedly 
went back to 3D System s and told them all about the trade secrets ,” which is 
“narrow in scope in terms of the facts.” (Dkt. 217 at 108:13–25). There is also 
some overlap in the counterclaims and third-party claims involving the allegations 
of Intrepid’s trade secrets, (id. at 109:16–24), and 3DS and Kuester should be 
considered one side, (id. at 101:23–102:2). Judge Leshner also understood there 
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 364 Filed 10/24/23 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 12 of 14
 
13 
21-cv-1141-LAB-DDL 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
was different conduct alleged against Kuester not alleged against 3DS, and he 
took these factors into consideration. (Id. at 114:5–13). Although Kuester may 
have wanted more discovery, Rule 26 authorizes Judge Leshner to modify the 
extent of permitted discovery in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(A) (“By order, 
the court may alter the limits in these rules.”) 
Moreover, Judge Leshner didn’t limit initial discovery on the counterclaims 
and third-party claims arbitrarily or lightly. He allowed the parties time to submit 
their proposals and held a hearing to allow the parties to elaborate on their 
respective positions. (Dkt. 217 at 101–114). When he issued his order, Judge 
Leshner indicated he imposed the limitations based on “the amount of discovery 
propounded in this matter to date and the scope of Intrepid’s counterclaims and 
third party claims.” (Dkt. 222 at 4). Trying to push the parti es towards trial 
readiness, Judge Leshner set these limits on discovery, but left open the 
possibility for the parties, including Kuester, to exceed the discovery limitations by 
obtaining leave from the Court. (Id. at 5). 
Kuester hasn’t shown that Judge Leshner’s June 12, 2023 Scheduling Order 
is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Jardin v. DATAllegro, Inc., No. 10-cv-
2552-IEG-WVG, 2011 WL 3299395, at *5 (S.D. Cal. July 29, 2011) (overruling 
objections to magistrate judge’s order because there was no abuse of discretion 
when ordering discovery procedures based on an assessment of the parties’ 
concerns and facts in the case). The Court AFFIRMS Judge Leshner’s June 12, 
2023 Scheduling Order imposing limits on Kuester’s discovery related to the third-
party claims and OVERRULES Kuester’s Objections. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Court concludes that Judge Leshner didn’t clearly err nor apply contrary 
law in denying 3DS’s request for leave to propound additional RFPs , (Dkt. 194), 
or in setting initial discovery limits for Kuester, (Dkt. 240). Bare Escentuals Beauty, 
Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 07-cv-90, 2007 WL 4357672, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 364 Filed 10/24/23 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 13 of 14
 
14 
21-cv-1141-LAB-DDL 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Dec. 11, 2007) (quoting Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Replay TV, No. CV 01-9358 
FMC (Ex), 2002 WL 32151632, at * 1 (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2002)) (“This Court’s 
function, on a motion for review of a magistrate judge’s discovery order, is not to 
decide what decision this Court would have reached on its own, nor to determine 
what is the best possible result considering all available evidence.”) 
The Court OVERRULES each of 3D S’s and Kuester’s O bjections to 
Magistrate Judge Leshner’s Orders. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: October 24, 2023 
 
 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 
United States District Judge 
 
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 364 Filed 10/24/23 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 14 of 14

Passage view · GavelSight