Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al

Filing 723

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 485 Third Party WI Harper Group's Motion to Quash. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
LOOP AI LABS INC,

7

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
ANNA GATTI, et al.,

10

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING THIRD PARTY WI
HARPER GROUP’S MOTION TO
QUASH
Re: Dkt. No. 485

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Third-party WI Harper Group, Inc. (“WI Harper”) filed a motion to quash a subpoena

12
13

served by Plaintiff Loop AI Labs Inc. (“Loop”). [Docket No. 485.] Plaintiff timely filed an

14

opposition. [Docket No. 536.] This matter is suitable for resolution without a hearing. Civ. L.R.

15

7-1(b). For the following reasons, WI Harper’s motion is granted.

16

I.

DISCUSSION

17

A.

18

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff served WI Harper with a Rule 45 subpoena for deposition

Background

19

testimony and set the deposition for March 24, 2016.1 Lee Decl., March 15, 2016, ¶ 2 Ex. A (WI

20

Harper Subpoena). The subpoena purported to designate Peter Liu, Chairman of WI Harper, as

21

WI Harper’s “corporate designee.” Id. It did not describe any topics for deposition. WI Harper is

22

not a party in this litigation, and Liu is not presently in the United States. He has been out of the

23

country since December 2015, (Lee Decl. ¶ 3), a fact which was apparently communicated to

24

Plaintiff prior to service of the subpoena. Mot. at 2. In response to the subpoena, WI Harper met

25

and conferred with Plaintiff and offered to make available for deposition Shahi Ghanem, a

26

managing director who was involved in WI Harper’s dealings with Plaintiff. Lee Decl. at ¶ 4.

27
1

28

WI Harper asserts that in the course of discovery, it has responded to multiple document
subpoenas from parties in this litigation, including two issued by Plaintiff. Mot. at 2.

1

Plaintiff rejected WI Harper’s proposal, insisting that WI Harper produce Liu for deposition. WI

2

Harper now moves to quash Plaintiff’s subpoena on the grounds that it retains the power to

3

designate an individual or individuals to testify on its behalf and is not required to produce Liu for

4

deposition.

5

On March 23, 2016, after WI Harper filed the present motion, WI Harper appeared for

6

deposition pursuant to Defendant Almawave USA, Inc.’s subpoena to WI Harper. Ghanem

7

appeared as WI Harper’s designee and testified at length about WI Harper’s decision not to invest

8

in Loop. Reply at 2. WI Harper represents that Plaintiff’s counsel questioned “and obtained

9

extensive testimony” from Ghanem on behalf of WI Harper. Id.
B.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs discovery of nonparties by subpoena. Fed. R.

Legal Standards

12

Civ. P. 45. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 45 state that “the scope of discovery through a

13

subpoena is the same as that applicable to Rule 34 and the other discovery rules,” which in turn is

14

the same as under Rule 26(b). Advisory Committee Notes to 1970 Amendment; Fed. R. Civ. P.

15

34(a) (“A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b).”). Federal

16

Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides

17
18
19
20

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to
the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative
access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance
of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in

22

evidence to be discoverable.” Id. “Relevancy, for the purposes of discovery, is defined broadly,

23

although it is not without ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234

24

F.R.D. 674, 679-80 (N.D. Cal. 2006).

25

Rule 45 provides that “on timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is

26

required must quash or modify a subpoena that . . . subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R.

27

Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv). The party who moves to quash a subpoena bears the “burden of

28

persuasion” under Rule 45(c)(3). Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 637 (C.D. Cal. 2005)
2

1

(citations omitted).

2

C.

3

It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s subpoena is directed to WI Harper, the entity, and that

Analysis

4

Plaintiff did not issue a subpoena to Liu personally. The dispute between WI Harper and Plaintiff

5

thus boils down to who may designate WI Harper’s corporate representative—WI Harper or

6

Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that it may appropriately designate Liu as WI Harper’s corporate

7

designee under Rule 30(b)(1) because he is the “Founder and Chairman of WI-Harper, and is in

8

charge of WI-Harper.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 1. Plaintiff’s position is unsupported. Rule 30(b)(1), which

9

permits depositions by notice, does not apply to non-parties to a lawsuit. Calderon v. Experian
Info. Sols., Inc., 287 F.R.D. 629, 631 (D. Idaho 2012) (“only a party to a lawsuit may be deposed

11

pursuant to notice as opposed to subpoena.”). Therefore, to command Liu’s attendance for a

12

deposition, Plaintiff was required to issue a subpoena to Liu personally and to serve him in

13

accordance with Rule 45(b). Since Plaintiff did not do so, and instead issued a subpoena to WI

14

Harper, Rule 30(b)(6) applies. That rule, subtitled “Notice or Subpoena Directed to an

15

Organization,” affords WI Harper, as the “named organization” in the subpoena, the authority to

16

“designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents” to testify on its behalf. Fed. R.

17

Civ. P. 30(b)(6).
Since WI Harper has already made its corporate representative available for deposition,

18
19

and Plaintiff has deposed its corporate representative, Plaintiff’s deposition subpoena to WI

20

Harper is quashed.

21

II.

WI Harper is quashed.
S

RT

H

28

______________________________________
yu
na M. R
DonnaeM.on
dg D Ryu
Ju
United States Magistrate Judge
ER
C
N
3
OF
D IS T IC T
R
NO

27

Dated: June 6, 2016

D
RDERE
IS SO O
IT

R NIA

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FO

25

RT
U
O

24

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

LI

23

For the foregoing reasons, WI Harper’s motion to quash is granted. Plaintiff’s subpoena to

A

22

CONCLUSION

UNIT
ED

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10