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)

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