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)

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NOT FOR CITATION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 [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

5
6
7
8

Michael J. Ioannou [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Stephen Edward Morrissey [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

9
Susan J. Harriman
[e-mail]

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],

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