In re Subpoena to Intel Corporation et al

Filing 34

ORDER ON #1 GLOBALFOUNDRIES' MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO INTEL CORPORATION. Signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on 12/13/2023. (svklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE SUBPOENA TO INTEL CORPORATION. Case No. 23-mc-80292-SVK ORDER ON GLOBALFOUNDRIES’ MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO INTEL CORPORATION 8 9 10 Re: Dkt. No. 1 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Before the Court is GlobalFoundries US, Inc.’s (“GF”) motion to compel compliance with 13 a subpoena served by GF on Intel Corporation in an underlying action pending in the Southern 14 District of New York, GlobalFoundries US Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., 15 S.D.N.Y. Case No. 23-cv-3348. Dkt. 1. GF and Intel have consented to the jurisdiction of a 16 magistrate judge in this subpoena dispute. Dkt. 17, 22. The Court held an in-person hearing on 17 December 13, 2023. 18 As discussed at the hearing, the record before this Court raises both factual issues (e.g., the 19 connection, if any, between “GF Controlled Trade Secrets” and the “IBM-Intel Partnership”) and 20 legal issues (e.g., the relevance, if any, of non-party Intel’s actual or planned use of GF’s alleged 21 trade secrets). As a result, the Court has concerns under Rule 26 about the relevance and 22 proportionality of the information sought by the subpoena, and GF has not demonstrated 23 substantial need under Rule 45 for the confidential information sought from Intel. 24 Accordingly, GF’s motion to compel compliance with the subpoena to Intel is DENIED 25 and the subpoena is QUASHED. This ruling is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to GF’s ability to 26 serve a new subpoena on Intel. If a motion concerning a new subpoena to Intel comes before this 27 Court, the Court will continue to evaluate the dispute under Rule 45(f) to determine whether 28 transfer to the Southern District of New York is appropriate. 1 Good cause appearing, the administrative motions for leave to file under seal at Dkt. 16, 2 24, 28, and 32 are GRANTED. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 3 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). 4 SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: December 13, 2023 6 7 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 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 2

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?