LegalZoom.com, Inc. v. Rocket Lawyer, Inc.

Filing 8

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL Re: Dkt. No. 1 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 2/24/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Case No.15-mc-80003-NC
TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION
TO COMPEL

v.
ROCKET LAWYER, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff LegalZoom moves to compel the production of documents subpoenaed

17

from non-party Google Inc. under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. A hearing on this

18

matter is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon in front of this Court.

19

A party issuing a subpoena “must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue

20

burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1).

21

Moreover, the Court must limit discovery if it determines that the burden or expense of the

22

proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

23

Here, the Court’s tentative view is to deny LegalZoom’s motion to compel because

24

LegalZoom has not taken reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden, and has not

25

established the proportionality of its requests. See Nalco Co. v. Turner Designs, Inc., No.

26

13-cv-02727 NC, 2014 WL 1311571, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014) (denying motion to

27

compel because subpoenaing party failed to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue

28

burden) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)); see also In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name &
Case No.: 15-mc-80003-NC

1

Likeness Licensing Litig., No. 09-cv-01967 CW (NC), 2012 WL 629225, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

2

Feb. 27, 2012) (“[B]ecause antitrust plaintiffs did not make reasonable attempts to avoid

3

imposing an undue burden on the nonparties, sanctions against antitrust plaintiffs are

4

warranted under Rule 45.”); Convolve, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., No. 10-cv-80071 WHA, 2011 WL

5

1766486, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011) (quashing subpoena and noting exhaustive

6

definitions to words such as “documents” and “identify” serve to further broaden the scope

7

of the subpoena unnecessarily).

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: February 24, 2015

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

Case No.:15-mc-80003-NC

2

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28