Realtime Data LLC -v- MetroPCS Texas, LLC, et al
Filing
23
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART 13 MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA by Judge Paul S. Grewal.(psglc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2012).
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
REALTIME DATA, LLC d/b/a IXO,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
METROPCS TEXAS, LLC; METROPCS
)
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; METROPCS
)
WIRELESS, INC.; AT&T MOBILITY LLC;
)
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON
)
WIRELESS; CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, )
INC. a/k/a CRICKET WIRELESS, INC.;
)
SPRINT NEXTEL CORP.; SPRINT
)
SPECTRUM L.P.; NEXTEL OPERATIONS,
)
INC.; SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT
)
COMPANY; AND T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Case No.: C 12-80130 LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
REALTIME’S MOTION TO COMPEL
NON-PARTY SKYFIRE TO COMPLY
WITH A SUBPOENA
(Re: Docket No. 13)
20
In this patent infringement suit pending in the Eastern District of Texas, 1 Plaintiff Realtime
21
Data, LLC (“Realtime”) seeks a court order compelling non-party Skyfire Labs, Inc. (“Skyfire”) to
22
comply with a subpoena issued from this district. 2 Skyfire opposes. 3 The subpoena calls for Skyfire
23
to produce both documents and testimony. Having considered the arguments and evidence
24
presented, the court GRANTS-IN-PART Realtime’s motion.
25
1
See Case No. 6:10-CV-00493-LED (E.D. Tex.).
2
See generally Docket No. 2 (Mot. to Compel).
3
See generally Docket No. 17 (Opp’n to Mot. to Compel).
26
27
28
1
Case No.: C 12-80130 LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART REALTIME’S MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY
SKYFIRE TO COMPLY WITH A SUBPOENA
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
2
Realtime alleges that the defendants in the Eastern District of Texas suit (the “Texas
3
Defendants”), the majority of whom are wireless communications companies, infringe Realtime’s
4
patents by using certain data compression and data acceleration technology in their networks. One
5
of the Texas Defendants is Verizon Wireless. The accused instrumentalities include Verizon’s
6
Content Management and Distribution System (“CMDS”), and, in particular, two distinct software
7
products included within CMDS that are supplied by Skyfire: (1) “Rocket Controller” and (2)
8
“Rocket Optimizer.” Realtime served a subpoena on Skyfire at its corporate headquarters in
9
Mountain View. The subpoena included nineteen requests for production of documents. It also
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
includes a request that Skyfire provide testimony concerning seven deposition topics.
11
After Skyfire refused all of Realtime’s requests, the parties met and conferred, and
12
Realtime agreed to limit the scope of its requests. In particular, Realtime agreed to limit its requests
13
to specific features of Rocket Optimizer and Rocket Controller described in its amended
14
infringement contentions. Realtime also agreed that Skyfire need not produce responsive
15
documents that Realtime expects to obtain from the Texas Defendants. Skyfire, however, still
16
refused to produce anything to Realtime.
17
II.
18
LEGAL STANDARDS
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 authorizes issuance of a subpoena to command a nonparty to produce
19
designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in its possession,
20
custody or control. 4 “[T]he scope of discovery through subpoena is the same as that applicable to
21
Rule 34 and the other discovery rules.” 5 Rule 34 states that “[a] party may serve on any other party
22
a request within the scope of Rule 26(b).” 6 Rule 26(b) states that “[p]arties may obtain discovery
23
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” 7 “Relevant
24
4
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii).
25
5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, Advisory Committee Notes (1970).
26
6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).
27
7
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).
28
2
Case No.: C 12-80130 LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART REALTIME’S MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY
SKYFIRE TO COMPLY WITH A SUBPOENA
1
information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to
2
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 8 Discovery is subject to certain limitations, however,
3
and is not without “ultimate and necessary boundaries.” 9
4
Under Rule 26, a court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that:
5
8
(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 burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case,
the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. 10
9
A nonparty commanded to produce documents and tangible things may serve objections to any of
6
7
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the documents or materials sought. 11 “A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a
11
subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a [nonparty]
12
subject to a subpoena.” 12 “Rule 26(c) and Rule 45(c)(3) give ample discretion to district courts to
13
quash or modify subpoenas causing ‘undue burden.’” 13
14
A nonparty withholding subpoenaed information on the grounds of privilege or otherwise
15
subject to protection must serve a privilege log describing the nature of the documents withheld so
16
that the other parties may assess the privilege or protection claimed. 14
17
III.
18
DISCUSSION
It is clear that Realtime is due at least some discovery from Skyfire. There is no dispute
19
that Verizon has incorporated Rocket Controller and Rocket Optimizer into CMDS, and Realtime
20
has specifically accused the Skyfire products in its amended infringement contentions. Skyfire also
21
8
22
9
23
Id.
Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Pacific Gas and Elec.,
Co. v. Lynch, Case No. 01-3023 VRW, 2002 WL 32812098, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2002)).
10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i), (ii) and (iii).
11
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B).
12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1).
13
Exxon Shipping Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 34 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir. 1994).
14
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(A)(ii).
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: C 12-80130 LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART REALTIME’S MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY
SKYFIRE TO COMPLY WITH A SUBPOENA
1
has made its Chief Technology Officer, Erik Swenson, available to Verizon’s technical expert to
2
answer questions about Skyfire’s Verizon-incorporated products. It would hardly be fair to allow
3
Skyfire to help one side in this case in this manner but deny the other side any opportunity
4
whatsoever to ask its own questions.
5
At the same time, Realtime has not demonstrated exactly what additional documents it
6
requires beyond those it has secured or should have secured from Verizon. 15 What is more, the case
7
has already passed both the fact and expert discovery deadlines set by Chief Judge Davis. Given all
8
this, the court is persuaded that the right balance to strike is as follows: (1) no later than September
9
7, 2012, Skyfire shall produce documents sufficient to show the operation of Rocket Controller and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Rocket Optimizer; and (2) no later than September 14, 2012, Skyfire shall produce a designated
11
witness for a three-hour deposition on the operation of Rocket Controller and Rocket Optimizer.
12
All other discovery requested by Realtime need not be produced.
13
IV.
14
CONCLUSION
The court GRANTS-IN-PART Realtime’s motion to compel Skyfire to comply with its
15
subpoena.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated: August 28, 2012
18
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
See, e.g., Haworth v. Herman Miller, Inc., 998 F.2d 975, 978 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (denying request
for discovery from nonparty because the discovery sought was clearly available from a party
opponent); Kim v. NuVasive, Inc., Case No. 11cv1370-DMS (NLS), 2011 WL 3844106, at *3-4
(S.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011) (same).
4
Case No.: C 12-80130 LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART REALTIME’S MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY
SKYFIRE TO COMPLY WITH A SUBPOENA
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
