Orthoflex Incorporated et al v. ThermoTek Incorporated

Filing 13

ORDER that the Motion to Quash Subpoena (Doc. 10 ) is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for resolution. The Parties may re-urge their request for oral argument on the merits in that Court. FURTHER ORD ERED that the Clerk of the Court shall cause a copy of this Order to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, No. 3:11-CV-0870-D. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 9/5/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Transfer letter)(KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Orthoflex, Inc. d/b/a Integrated)
O r t h o p e d i c s , M o t i o n M e d i c a l)
Technologies, LLC; Wabash Medical)
)
Company, LLC,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
Thermotek, Inc.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

No. MC 12-00013-PHX-JAT
ORDER

17
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Rule 45 Motion to Quash Subpoena to
18
Pacific Biomedical, Inc, or in the Alternative, to Transfer this Matter to the Northern District
19
of Texas (Doc. 10). The Court now rules on the Motion.
20
Plaintiffs and Defendant are engaged in litigation in the District Court for the
21
Northern District of Texas. (Doc. 10 at 3). On April 23, 2012, Plaintiffs issued a subpoena
22
to Defendant’s distributor, Pacific Biomedical, Inc., requesting production of several
23
categories of documents. Defendant now seeks to quash that subpoena on the grounds that
24
(1) the subpoena asks for confidential information that is not subject to discovery in this case
25
and (2) the subpoena circumvents an Order issued by Magistrate Judge Stickney, who is
26
overseeing this case in the Northern District of Texas.
27
In response, Plaintiffs argue that the subpoena does not circumvent Magistrate Judge
28

1

Stickney’s prior Order and that Defendants have not met their burden in establishing that the

2

information sought by the subpoena is confidential information not subject to disclosure.

3

Plaintiffs request that the Court deny the motion to quash the subpoena or,

4

alternatively, transfer the dispute regarding the subpoena to the Texas court that is presiding

5

over the litigation. Defendant requests that this Court quash the subpoena or alternatively,

6

transfer the dispute regarding the subpoena to the Texas court that is presiding over the

7

litigation.

8

If warranted by the circumstances of a particular case, a federal court may transfer a

9

dispute concerning a subpoena to the court presiding over the litigation. See CMC

10

Interconnect Techs., Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Corp., No. MC-09-0003-PHX-DGC,

11

2009 WL 539674, at * 2 (D. Ariz. March 4, 2009).

12

While both Plaintiffs and Defendant ask the Court only to transfer the issue to the

13

District Court in Texas in the alternative, the Court finds that the circumstances of this case

14

necessitate a transfer. In this case, the Motion to Quash concerns a dispute between the

15

Parties to the Texas lawsuit, raises issues of discovery and confidentiality with which the

16

Texas court is already familiar, and seemingly requires the interpretation of the Texas court’s

17

prior Order. Accordingly, the Court will order that the motion to quash be transferred to the

18

Texas court for decision. See CMC, 2008 WL 539674, at *2 (finding transfer of motion to

19

quash warranted because of “(1) the Maine court’s familiarity with the complex underlying

20

patent litigation; (2) the potential impact of this discovery dispute on that litigation; (3) the

21

Maine court’s familiarity with the specific events alleged to have produced a waiver, some

22

of which occurred before the presiding district judge; (4) the Maine magistrate judge’s prior

23

ruling on a closely-related discovery issue; and (5) the fact that the Maine court has before

24

it the key parties and lawyers involved in the dispute.”).

25

Based on the foregoing,

26

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Quash Subpoena (Doc. 10) is transferred to the

27

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas for resolution. The Parties

28

may re-urge their request for oral argument on the merits in that Court.
-2-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall cause a copy of this

2

Order to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

3

Division, No. 3:11-CV-0870-D.

4

DATED this 5th day of September, 2012.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-