Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 178

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 168 Discovery Dispute re Apple Document Subpoena to Pendrell. (vkdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
UNILOC USA, INC., et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE
APPLE DOCUMENT SUBPOENA TO
PENDRELL

v.

10

APPLE INC.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 19-cv-01692-EJD (VKD)

Defendants.

12

Re: Dkt. No. 168

13
Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and non-party Pendrell Technologies, LLC (“Pendrell”)

14
15

have filed a joint discovery dispute letter concerning Apple’s document subpoena to Pendrell.

16

Dkt. No. 168. Apple asks for an order compelling Pendrell to produce documents responsive to

17

the subpoena and to prepare a privilege log. Pendrell objects that this Court has no authority to

18

enforce Apple’s subpoena because Pendrell is a non-party located in the state of Washington,

19

beyond this Court’s jurisdiction. In the alternative, Pendrell objects to Apple’s request on the

20

merits and seeks a protective order. The Court deems this matter suitable for resolution without a

21

hearing. Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
For the reasons explained below, the Court finds it has authority to consider the dispute but

22
23

denies Apple’s request for relief.

24

I.

Apple served the subpoena at issue on Pendrell on January 27, 2020. Dkt. No. 168 at ECF

25
26

BACKGROUND

p. 1, 5; see Dkt. No. 168-1.1 The subpoena reflects that Pendrell is located in Kirkland,

27
28

1

The cover page of the subpoena appears to be misdated, as it reflects a date of issuance of
“1/27/19.” However, Apple and Pendrell seem to agree that the subpoena was issued and served

1

Washington, but the document production portion of the subpoena specifies a place of production

2

in San Francisco, California. Dkt. No. 168-1 at ECF p. 5. It is not clear whether Pendrell served

3

any objections to this subpoena. Pendrell attaches to the discovery dispute letter written

4

“responses” that appear to correspond to the document requests in Apple’s subpoena, but these

5

responses are undated, and by Pendrell’s own account, they were served in response to other,

6

similar Apple subpoenas served in other cases. See Dkt. No. 168-2; Dkt. No. 168 at ECF p. 4

7

(referring to a response served on October 10, 2019, before the date of the subpoena at issue,

8

regarding Apple subpoenas served in Case Nos. 19-cv-1697-VC, 19-cv-1904-WHO, and 19-cv-

9

1929-EJD). In any event, these responses do not include any objection to the place of production
of documents. Pendrell says that it never agreed to produce responsive documents in San

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Francisco, California.2 Dkt. No. 168 at ECF p. 5.

12

II.

DISCUSSION

13

A.

14

Subpoena-related motions under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be

Jurisdiction

15

filed in “the court for the district where compliance is required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i),

16

(d)(3)(A), (d)(3)(B), (e)(2)(B). Here, Apple’s subpoena specifies a place of compliance in San

17

Francisco, California. Pendrell objects that the subpoena does not comply with the geographic

18

limits on the place of compliance specified in Rule 45(c) and for this reason the Court lacks

19

jurisdiction to decide the dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A) (the place of compliance for a

20

subpoena commanding the production of documents must be “within 100 miles of where the

21

person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person”).
Although there is disagreement among the federal district courts on this point,3 the Court

22
23

concludes that under the plain language of Rule 45(d), Apple’s motion to compel is properly filed

24
25
26
27
28

on January 27, 2020.
Pendrell asserts that all of Apple’s other document subpoenas have specified Seattle, Washington
as the place of compliance. Dkt. No. 168 at ECF p. 4.
2

3

The parties provided no useful authority whatsoever on this issue, even though it is a threshold
issue in their dispute.
2

1

in this district, as it is the place where compliance is required on the face of the subpoena, even if

2

that place of compliance is not proper under Rule 45(c). Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i); see, e.g.,

3

CSS, Inc. v. Herrington, 354 F. Supp. 3d 702, 709 (N.D. Tex. 2017) (“for purposes of a Rule

4

45(d)(2) or 45(d)(3) motion, the court or district ‘where compliance is required’ is determined by

5

the location or ‘place’ for compliance identified on the subpoena”); but see, e.g., Raap v. Brier &

6

Thorn, Inc., No. 17-MC-3001, 2017 WL 2462823, at *2-3 (C.D. Ill. July 7, 2017) (place where

7

compliance is required is the location required by Rule 45(c)).
Apple’s Request for Relief

B.

9

Apple seeks to enforce its document subpoena against Pendrell. It asks for an order

10

requiring Pendrell to search an archive containing more than 550,000 files. Apple also asks for an

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

order requiring Pendrell to prepare a privilege log for any claims of privilege pertaining to non-

12

email documents. Dkt. No. 168 at ECF p. 1-3. Pendrell objects that Apple’s request is unduly

13

burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Pendrell also objects that Apple

14

unreasonably delayed until the very end of the discovery period to make its extraordinary demand,

15

particularly when the issues could have been raised earlier in the discovery period. Id. at ECF

16

p. 6-8.

17

The Court denies Apple’s motion on three grounds. First, the Court declines to enforce a

18

subpoena that clearly does not comply with Rule 45(c). “Although Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(iii) permits

19

the subpoena to direct a place of compliance, that place must be selected under Rule 45(c).” Fed.

20

R. Civ. P. 45 advisory committee’s note to 2013 amendment, Subdivision (c). While nothing in

21

Rule 45(c) prevents parties from arranging to produce documents by electronic means rather than

22

at a physical location, a subpoena that purports to compel production beyond the geographical

23

limits specified in Rule 45(c) does not comply with the requirements of the Rule. See id; Fed. R.

24

Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). Apple points out that Pendrell did not object to San Francisco, California as

25

the place of compliance. That may be, but while a non-party may voluntarily produce documents

26

at a location more than 100 miles from its place of business, Apple cites no authority for the

27

proposition that the Court must construe such voluntary production as consent or waiver when the

28

subpoenaing party asks the Court to use its authority to enforce the subpoena over the non-party’s
3

1

objections in opposition to a motion to compel.
Second, the Court is not persuaded that the archived files Apple asks Pendrell to search are

2

likely to contain non-privileged materials that are relevant to a claim or defense. Apple describes

4

the materials as an “additional data source” that Pendrell disclosed in September 2020 that may

5

contain information about valuations of a large patent portfolio that includes the asserted patent.

6

Dkt. No. 168 at ECF p. 1. Pendrell describes the materials as “internal, litigation-focused

7

documents—generated for and at the direction of attorneys for potential litigation—from

8

Pendrell’s Ovidian division between 2012 and 2018.” Id. at ECF p. 6. Apart from referring to the

9

Court’s order resolving a prior discovery dispute, Apple’s portion of the discovery dispute letter

10

does little to explain why it believes these materials contain relevant and responsive documents

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

and why it believes the very significant effort that would be required to review the archived files

12

for responsive documents is justified here.
Third, from the record before the Court it appears that Apple did not timely confer with

13
14

Pendrell about this discovery dispute in a manner that would have permitted the parties to attempt

15

in good faith to resolve their disagreements without seeking the Court’s assistance. Pendrell is not

16

a party, and Apple must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden and expense on a

17

non-party who is subject to a subpoena, even if the non-party is represented by the same counsel

18

representing Uniloc. Fed. R. Civ. 45(d). Apple has not taken these steps, nor does it appear to

19

have complied with the letter and spirit of the Court’s Standing Order regarding discovery dispute

20

resolution.

21

III.

22
23
24
25

CONCLUSION
The Court denies Apple’s request for an order compelling production of documents and

preparation of a privilege log.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 23, 2020

26
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
4