United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER AND SETTING HEARING
ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SUBPOENA REGARDING DOCKET NOS. 1,
18
SALLIE
KIM United States Magistrate Judge
Before
the Court is a motion brought by Plaintiff Personalized Media
Communications (“PMC”) to either transfer the
enforcement of a subpoena to the Eastern District of Texas or
to enforce a subpoena against non-party Sigma Designs, Inc.
(“Sigma”), domiciled in the Northern District of
California. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the
documentation filed in support, the Court hereby DENIES the
motion to transfer on the grounds that PMC failed to
establish exceptional circumstances warranting the transfer
of the motion. The Court further sets a hearing on the issue
of enforcement of PMC’s subpoena for August 17, 2016 at
9:30 a.m. PDT in Department A, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, San Francisco, California. Out of state counsel may
appear by telephone, if requested. Counsel must make a
written request to appear by telephone.
A.
Background
In this
patent infringement case involving Vizio digital televisions,
PMC seeks to obtain discovery from third party supplier
Sigma, which allegedly supplied systems-on-a-chip or
“chips” to Defendant Vizio, Inc. PMC served a
subpoena on Sigma in February 2016, in response to which
Sigma submitted objections and produced documents. PMC
contests Sigma’s objections and moves to compel further
production. In addition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 45(f), PMC moves the Court to transfer its motion
to the issuing court, the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. PMC
contends that exceptional circumstances exist that warrant
transferring the motion to the issuing court.
PMC’s
motion was filed with this Court on June 7, 2016. (Dkt. 1)
Subsequently, this Court granted three extensions for Sigma
to respond while the parties met and conferred to resolve
their dispute. (Dkts. 13, 15, 17.) On July 29, 2016, Sigma
filed a response, asking the Court to deny PMC’s motion
to transfer, and to quash or modify the subpoena. (Dkt. 18.)
B.
Motion to Transfer
1.
Legal Standard
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 45 provides that subpoenas are issued
from the court where the action is pending. Fed.R.Civ.P.
45(a)(2). Compliance is addressed by the court where
compliance occurs; if compliance is required elsewhere,
compliance may be transferred to the issuing court if the
subject of the subpoena “consents or if the court finds
exceptional circumstances.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(f).
The
notes of the Advisory Committee provide guidance as to when
“exceptional circumstances” exist. The primary
consideration should be to avoid “burdens on local
nonparties subject to subpoenas and it should not be assumed
that the issuing court is in a superior position to resolve
subpoena-related motions.” Advisory Committee Note to
2013 Amendments of Fed.R.Civ.P. 45. The Advisory Committee
acknowledged that there may be some circumstances where
“transfer may be warranted in order to avoid disrupting
the issuing court’s management of the underlying
litigation, as when the court has already ruled on issues
presented by the motion or the same issues are likely to
arise in discovery in many districts.” Id.
Transfer is only appropriate if such interests outweigh the
interests of the nonparty in having the subpoena resolved
locally. Id.
PMC
argues that the enforcement of the subpoena should be
transferred because it would promote judicial economy and
because there is a risk of inconsistent rulings between this
Court, the Eastern District of Texas, and the Central
District of California, where another subpoena has been
issued. PMC relies on what sounds like a motion to dismiss
certain claims against Vizio pending in the Eastern District
of Texas which allegedly turns on production of documents
from Vizio, including documents involving Sigma supplied
chips. However, PMC has not cited to any previously
court-determined discovery decision or issue with which this
Court is at risk of conflicting. As to the issue of judicial
economy, such a risk would be inherent in any motion to
compel determined by an issuing court. Yet, the Advisory
Committee clearly states that the primary consideration is
burden on the local nonparty.
PMC has
not provided sufficient factual support for its conclusion
that Sigma will not be burdened by the transfer of the motion
to the issuing court. PMC argues that Sigma is coordinating
its production with PMC and that there is a policy from the
Advisory Committee encouraging judges to allow telephonic
appearances. However, the Court finds these arguments
inadequate. “[L]ocal nonparties should be burdened as
little as practicable by litigation in which they are not
involved, and local resolution of the motion will typically
impose a lighter burden.” Woods ex del. U.S. v.
SouthernCare, Inc., 303 F.R.D. 405, 407-408 (N.D. Ala
2014). Given that PMC has not established exceptional
circumstances, Plaintiffs motion to transfer is DENIED.
C.
Motion to Compel
According
to the Declaration of Karen Hu, submitted in support of
Sigma’s response, after PMC filed its motion, Sigma
produced over 600 pages of technical documents on July 1,
2016, 90 additional documents on July 15, 2016, and over 200
pages on July 28, 2016. (Dkt. 18-1, PP 5, 6, 7.) Based on the
Bates stamp numbers, Sigma has produced 1433 pages to date -
much of which was provided after PMC filed its current
motion. The Court wishes to hear from both parties as to the
remaining issues in dispute. Therefore, the Court sets this
issue for hearing on August 17, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. No further
pleadings are necessary.
IT
...