Pravin et al v. Wipro, Inc.

Filing 133

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 36 Motion to Quash; granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion to Quash; granting in part and denying in part 44 defendant's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 *E-FILED 09-06-2011* 3 4 5 6 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 7 12 PRAVIN JAIN, RANDY HOTHAUS, DILIP KUKREJA, MARK WARNER and DOUGLAS TANNER, 13 14 15 16 Plaintiffs, v. WIPRO, INC., No. C09-02743 RS ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART WIPRO’S MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS; AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS OR FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [Re: Docket Nos. 36, 39, 44] Defendant. / 17 18 Several nonparty law firms and their attorneys moved to quash subpoenas served by 19 defendant Wipro, Inc. (Wipro). In sum, the subpoenaed firms and attorneys were, at various 20 points during the litigation, all counsel of record in an underlying state court lawsuit between 21 Ashwin Kedia (not a party to the instant action) and plaintiff Pravin Jain and Wipro. Jain also 22 moved to quash, or alternatively for a protective order, re a subpoena Wipro served on Kedia. 23 Wipro opposed the motions. Wipro also requested sealing as to several exhibits appended to 24 the Ioannou Declaration. This court has considered the moving and responding papers, as well 25 as the arguments of counsel, and issues this order to memorialize the oral rulings made at the 26 motion hearing. 27 28 Wipro’s motion to seal is granted as to Exhibits 1 and 5. With respect to Exhibits 2-4, 6 and 9, it was agreed at the hearing that KVN would review those documents and notify the 1 court within 48 hours if KVN believed sealing was required. The court having received no such 2 notice from KVN, the motion to seal those exhibits is denied. The motion to seal is also denied 3 as to Exhibit 7, the parties having indicated that they have no objection to the public filing of 4 that document. Kedia is granted in part and denied in part. Jain and his counsel acknowledged that they have 7 no standing to quash the Kedia subpoena, particularly when this court was told that Kedia 8 agreed to cooperate with the discovery requested by Wipro. Nevertheless, as a participant in 9 the underlying mediation in the state court case, Jain has standing to assert objections based on 10 the mediation privilege. And, the parties agree that conversations that occurred in the mediation 11 For the Northern District of California The motion to quash, or alternatively, for protective order as to the subpoena served on 6 United States District Court 5 context are privileged. Accordingly, the court will not preclude Kedia’s deposition. However, 12 mediation-related communications are off-limits. 13 The motions to quash are granted as to all the other subpoenas at issue. The discovery 14 sought is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 15 evidence. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Even if the discovery sought were relevant, the court finds 16 that its likely benefit is outweighed by the burden and expense that would be imposed. FED. R. 17 CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Moreover, the subpoenas, on their face, appear to seek information that 18 is protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. 19 Even so, KVN’s request for reimbursement of its attorney’s fees incurred in connection 20 with this discovery dispute is denied. On the record presented, the court finds that an award of 21 fees is not warranted. 22 23 SO ORDERED. Dated: September 6, 2011 24 HOWARD R. LLOYD 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 2 1 5:09-cv-02743-RS Notice has been electronically mailed to: 2 Daniel J Walker 3 Daniel Paul McKinnon 4 Jon Mark Thacker,,,,,, 5 6 7 8 Michael J. Ioannou,,,,,,,,, Stephen Edward Morrissey,,, 9 Susan J. Harriman 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10,,, Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?