Apple filed its motion to compel with the court after what it saw as a disappointing deposition hearing with Psystar’s CEO, Rudy Pedraza. Mr. Pedraza, according to Apple, “stated approximately 90 times during the deposition that he did not know or recall answers to basic questions about Psystar’s sales, its general costs and profits, its costs and profits by product line, [and] how it determines prices and profit margins.”
Psystar, however, contended that since it isn’t as big a company as Apple, it doesn’t have the resources available for highly detailed accounting. The company also claimed that Apple has received more detailed information from third-party subpoenas, so it shouldn’t need to provide additional data.
“Psystar’s arguments have several problems. First, I am as certain as I can be that, when Apple noticed Psystar’s deposition, it notified Psystar to supply a person who could testify as to Psystar’s finances,” said an anonymous attorney familiar with the case. “Moreover, as CEO, Mr. Pedraza, would be expected to know at least the basics of Psystar’s finances. Psystar’s failing to provide a person who was knowledgeable about Psystar’s finances is a violation that entitles Apple to the costs of the future deposition caused by that violation.”
The company also said that Apple hasn’t been responsive to the discovery requests it has made — a claim that Judge Alsup will likely see as irrelevant since one party’s failure to respond to discovery requests doesn’t alleviate the other side’s responsibility to comply.
While Psystar has responded to Apple’s motion, the court won’t likely look favorably on the company’s actions. The attorney familiar with the case added “The bottom line is that I think Judge Alsup will read Psystar the riot act by ordering Psystar to respond to Apple’s discovery requests by a date certain and will award Apple the costs of having to take another deposition.”