Gordon, et al v. Sigma Designs, Inc.

Filing 17

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

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 SIDNEY GORDON AND JEFFREY TAUBER, Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 15 Case No.15-mc-80057-NC TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL Re: Dkt. No. 1 SIGMA DESIGNS, INC., Defendant. 16 17 Petitioners Sidney Gordon and Jeffrey Tauber move to compel the production of 18 documents subpoenaed from non-party Sigma under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. 19 A hearing on this matter is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon in front of this Court. 20 A party issuing a subpoena “must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue 21 burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). 22 Moreover, the Court must limit discovery if it determines that the burden or expense of the 23 proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 24 Here, the Court’s tentative view is to deny petitioners’ motion to compel because 25 petitioners have not taken reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden, and have not 26 established the proportionality of their requests. See Nalco Co. v. Turner Designs, Inc., 27 No. 13-cv-02727 NC, 2014 WL 1311571, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014) (denying motion 28 to compel because subpoenaing party failed to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing Case No.: 15-mc-80057-NC 1 undue burden) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)); see also In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name 2 & Likeness Licensing Litig., No. 09-cv-01967 CW (NC), 2012 WL 629225, at *1 (N.D. 3 Cal. Feb. 27, 2012) (“[B]ecause antitrust plaintiffs did not make reasonable attempts to 4 avoid imposing an undue burden on the nonparties, sanctions against antitrust plaintiffs are 5 warranted under Rule 45.”); Convolve, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., No. 10-cv-80071 WHA, 2011 WL 6 1766486, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011) (quashing subpoena and noting exhaustive 7 definitions to words such as “documents” and “identify” serve to further broaden the scope 8 of the subpoena unnecessarily). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: February 24, 2015 _____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge Case No.:15-mc-80057-NC 2 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

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?