Flynn et al v. FCA U.S., LLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING 1 MOVANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.'S COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 5/23/2017. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Krista M. Enns (SBN: 206430)
[e-mail]
Scotia J. Hicks (SBN: 252647)
[e-mail]
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5840
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Non-Party
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

In re: NON-PARTY DEPOSITION
SUBPOENA

12
13

BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE and KELLY
BROWN; and MICHAEL KEITH, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated,

14
Movants,
15

Case No. 5:17-mc-80051-SVK
[Pending in the Southern District of Illinois,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00855 MJR-DGW]
ORDER DENYING MOVANTS’ MOTION
TO COMPEL NON-PARTY CISCO
SYSTEMS, INC.’S COMPLIANCE WITH
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

vs.
16
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
17
18
19

BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE and KELLY
BROWN; and MICHAEL KEITH

20

Plaintiffs,

21
22
23

vs.
FCA U.S. LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP
LLC, Auburn Hills, MI and HARMAN
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Stamford, CT

24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL – CASE NO. 5:17-MC-80051-SVK

1

ORDER

2

Before the Court are (1) the Motion to Compel Non-Party Cisco Systems, Inc.’s Compliance

3

With Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Motion to Compel”) filed by Movants Brian Flynn, et al. (“Flynn”),

4

(2) the Limited Response and Objection to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Directed to Non-Party

5

Cisco Systems, Inc. filed by Defendant FCA U.S. LLC (“FCA,” ” f.k.a. Chrysler), (3) the Opposition

6

to Motion to Compel (“Opposition”) filed by non-party Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), and

7

(4) Flynn’s Reply in Further Support of the Motion to Compel. Having considered all papers and

8

evidence offered in support of and in opposition to the motion, and for good cause shown, the Court

9

hereby DENIES the Motion to Compel for the reasons set forth below.

10

1.

The Motion to Compel is denied on grounds of relevance as defined in Fed. R. Civ.

11

P. 401. The Court is not persuaded that there is a connection between what Cisco may have thought

12

or discussed —strictly internally, and without sharing with FCA—and what is relevant to the

13

remaining claims in the underlying dispute. Flynn’s briefing as to the issue of relevance is

14

conclusory. The blanket assertion, without more, that the documents sought are relevant because

15

they relate to the same subject matter as the underlying dispute fails to satisfy Flynn’s burden as to

16

relevance, nor does it address proportionality as mandated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.

17

2.

The Court is similarly concerned about the breakdown in the meet and confer process.

18

A focused search, and the use of search terms, would have been appropriate here had the documents

19

sought been relevant.

20

3.

The Court declines to reach the issue of costs.

21

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Flynn’s Motion to Compel is denied.

22
23
24
25

Dated:

5/23/2017
Hon. Susan van Keulen
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
1
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL – CASE NO. 5:17-MC-80051-SVK