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)
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?