Ex Parte Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 Authorizing Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings.

Filing 19

ORDER granting 18 Amended Application Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 9/25/2024. (vkdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8
9

IN RE EX PARTE APPLICATION OF
DAEDALUS PRIME, LLC,
Applicant,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

For an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782
Authorizing Discovery for Use in Foreign
Proceedings.

Case No. 24-mc-80208-VKD
ORDER GRANTING AMENDED
APPLICATION PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 1782
Re: Dkt. No. 18

13
14

On September 16, 2024, the Court issued an order denying without prejudice Daedalus

15

Prime LLC’s (“Daedalus Prime”) application for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782

16

authorizing service of a subpoena for documents and deposition testimony on MediaTek USA,

17

Inc. (“MediaTek USA”). Dkt. No. 17. The Court concluded that Daedalus Prime’s application

18

met the statutory criteria for an order authorizing service of the proposed subpoena, but that the

19

factors that inform the Court’s exercise of its discretion under Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro

20

Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004) did not favor authorizing service of the subpoena. Id.

21

On September 23, 2024, Daedalus Prime filed an amended application seeking

22

authorization to serve a modified subpoena on MediaTek USA. Dkt. No. 18; Dkt. No. 18-1; Dkt.

23

No. 18-2. In the amended application, Daedalus Prime has revised its definition of “MediaTek” /

24

“MediaTek USA” and has limited the document requests and deposition topics. See Dkt. No. 18-

25

1; Dkt. No. 18-2. Daedalus Prime relies on its prior application and supporting materials, as well

26

as a further declaration of its German counsel. See Dkt. No. 18; Dkt. No. 18-3.

27
28

With respect to Daedalus Prime’s original application, the Court directed MediaTek USA
to file a response. However, with respect to the amended application, the Court concludes that the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

interests of efficiency are best served by addressing the application on ex parte basis. In the

2

exercise of its discretion, the Court concludes that Daedalus Prime’s amended application

3

addresses the Court’s concerns sufficiently to permit service of the proposed amended subpoena

4

on MediaTek USA. The subpoena shall comply with Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil

5

Procedure and with Civil Local Rule 30-1. In this order, the Court does not reconsider any of its

6

prior findings, nor does it conclude that Daedalus Prime is entitled to obtain all of the discovery it

7

seeks; rather, the Court authorizes service of the proposed subpoena. MediaTek USA may raise

8

objections and, if those objections are not resolved by the parties following diligent efforts to

9

reach agreement on any disputes, may exercise its due process rights by challenging the subpoena

10

after it is issued via a motion to quash. See In re: Ex Parte Application Varian Med. Sys. Int’l AG,

11

Applicant, No. 16-mc-80048-MEJ, 2016 WL 1161568, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2016).1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: September 25, 2024

14
15
Virginia K. DeMarchi
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

If both parties agree, any disputes concerning the subpoena may be raised using the expedited
discovery dispute resolution procedure described in Judge DeMarchi’s Standing Order for Civil
Cases, https://cand.uscourts.gov/standing-order-for-civil-cases-april-2024/.
2