In Re: TQ Delta and Jason H. Vick
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 10/17/2018. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In Re TQ DELTA and JASON H. VICK.
Civil Action No. 17-mc-328-RGA
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan, FARNAN LLP, Wilmington, DE; James P. Murphy,
MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD, Chicago, IL; Patricia Y. Ho, SHERIDAN ROSS
PC, Denver, CO, attorneys for Plaintiff TQ Delta and nonparty Jason H. Vick.
Jody C. Barillare, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kenneth L. Dorsney,
MORRIS JAMES LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for Defendants.
October
l] ,2018
~
DISTRIT
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff TQ Delta and nonparty Jason H. Vick ' s Motion to
Quash Defendants' subpoenas to Jason H. Vick. (D.I. 1). The parties have fully briefed the
issues. (D.I. 1, D.I. 22, D.I. 23). For the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies
in part Plaintiff and Vick' s Motion to Quash.
I.
Background
Plaintiff TQ Delta ("Plaintiff') and Defendants Pace PLC, 2Wire, ZyXEL
Communications, Inc. ZyXEL Communications Corporation and Adtran ("Defendants") are
engaged in ongoing litigation within this District. (Case Nos. 13-cv-1835-RGA, 13-cv-2013RGA, 14-cv-954-RGA, and 15-cv-121-RGA). On October 27, 2017, Defendants served four
subpoenas in those actions on nonparty Jason H. Vick ("Vick") in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado. (D.I. 1, Ex 1.) The subpoenas were for deposition
testimony and production of documents. (Id.) . On November 10, 2017, Plaintiff and Vick filed
a motion to quash Defendants' subpoenas and to transfer the motion to quash to the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, where the litigation is ongoing. (D.I. 1). On
December 4, 2017, the Motion to Quash was transferred to this District. (D.I. 14).
Vick is an attorney at Sheridan Ross, PC, a law firm in Denver, Colorado. (D.I.311).
Vick and the Sheridan Ross law firm have represented Plaintiff and Plaintiffs predecessor-ininterest, Aware. (Id. 114-5). During these representations, Vick has prosecuted numerous
patents for both Plaintiff and Aware, including the patents-in-suit. (Id.).
II.
Discussion
"On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to
allow a reasonable time to comply, ... (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected
1
matter ... or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3). "The party
seeking to quash the subpoena bears the burden of demonstrating that the requirements of Rule
45 are satisfied." Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-15, 2012 WL 3089383 , at *5 (E.D. Pa.
2012). "Courts have described this as a heavy burden." Id.
Plaintiff and Vick assert that the Court should grant the motion to quash for the following
reasons: (1) the vast majority of the documents and information requested are subject to attorneyclient privilege; (2) any non-privileged relevant information that may be covered by the request
can be obtained from more convenient sources; (3) compliance with the subpoenas will subject
Vick to undue burden and (4) the subpoenas do not allow reasonable time to comply. (D.I. 1).
Plaintiff and Vick further request that the Court sanction Defendants. (Id. at 14).
Defendants argue that the motion should be denied because ( 1) Plaintiff lacks standing to
challenge the subpoenas; (2) the requested discovery is relevant to the ongoing litigation; (3) the
failure to provide a privilege log defeats the claim of attorney-client privilege; and (4) Plaintiff
and Vick cannot show that every question asked at a deposition would be privileged. (D.I. 22).
Defendants also assert that there are no grounds for sanctions. (Id. at 14).
A. Plaintiff's Standing
Defendants assert Plaintiff lacks standing to move to quash a nonparty subpoena.
Plaintiffs standing is irrelevant. The motion to quash is made by both Plaintiff and Vick. (D.I.
1). As the nonparty to whom the subpoenas are directed, Vick clearly has standing to move to
quash the subpoenas.
B. Whether the Subpoenas Provided a Reasonable Time for Compliance
Vick contends that the subpoenas failed to allow a reasonable time for compliance. (Id.
at 13). Neither Rule 45 nor the Third Circuit Court of Appeals have provided a firm rule
2
regarding the number of days that constitute a reasonable time. Here, Vick had from October
27, when the subpoenas were served, to November 13, the day of the deposition to supply the
related documents and give a deposition. (Id. at Ex. 1). Vick maintains that this request is
unreasonable because the document requests are "excessively broad, requesting ' All documents
and things' related to all thirty-eight patents asserted and all related patents." (Id. at 13).
However, Vick has not requested a modification of the time frame for compliance, but to
completely quash the subpoena. Because I can lengthen the time frame of compliance, I decline
to quash the subpoena on this ground.
C. Undue Burden
Vick also claims that the breadth and scope of the subpoena is unduly burdensome. (Id.
at 11). Rule 45(d)(3)(A) requires courts to "quash or modify a subpoena that ... subjects a
person to undue burden." "When analyzing whether a subpoena places an undue burden on a
nonparty, courts consider issues such as relevance, the requesting party' s need for the
documents, the breadth of the request, the time period covered, the particularity with which the
documents are described, and the burden imposed in responding. " Ebert v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
2014 WL 1365889, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2014). Here, the subpoenas are extraordinarily
broad. They ask for "all documents and things" received by either Vick or his law firm from
Aware, Plaintiff, or any Inventor regarding the 38 asserted patents and any possibly related
patents and the prosecution of those patents. They also ask for "all communications" between
Vick or his law firm and Aware, Plaintiff, or any inventor regarding the 38 asserted patents, any
possibly related patents, and the prosecution of those patents. Vick has prosecuted over 600
patents for Plaintiff and Aware. Therefore, the possible number of patents covered by the
subpoenas is significantly higher than the 38 asserted patents. Considering Rule 26(b)(l)'s
3
proportionality requirement, the reach of the subpoenas is unduly broad. The subpoenas do not
describe the documents or communications they seek with any particularity. Nor are the
requests limited in time, spanning a possible twenty years of documents and communications.
The burden imposed on Vick in responding to these document requests and preparing for a
deposition is quite high.
Moreover, many of Defendants' requests are for information that could be acquired from
either the Plaintiff itself or publicly available sources. A significant number of the requests
target documents or communications from Plaintiff itself, rather than a nonparty. 1 Additionally,
many of the requests encompass publicly available information.2 Therefore, the breadth of the
requests combined with the lack of limitation or specificity places an undue burden on Vick if he
must comply with the subpoenas.
D. Attorney-Client Privilege
Vick further asserts that the subpoenas are directed to documents and communications
that are protected.by the attorney-client privilege. Vick clearly has standing to assert the
attorney-client privilege on behalf of both Aware and Plaintiff. Under the attorney-client
privilege, "the giving of professional advice" by the lawyer to the client and "the giving of
information to the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice" are protected.
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383,390 (1981). Defendants respond that Vick must
provide a privilege log to claim the privilege. However, " [i]f a broad discovery request is made
... and the responding party believes in good faith that the production of [the requested]
1
Document Request Nos . 2, 5, 8, 11 , 20, 23 , 26, 29, 32, 35 , 38, 41 , 44, 47, 50.
Given that the requests relate to the prosecution of the asserted patents and related patents, the
Defendants can acquire a significant amount of the requested information from the public
prosecution files of the patents.
4
2
documents ... would be unduly burdensome, it should make its objection to the breadth of the
request. " Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) Adv. Comm. Note to 1993 Ams. Vick has done so here.
(D.I. 1). For the reasons stated above, the creation of a privilege log would itself be unduly
burdensome here. Therefore, the lack of a privilege log will not defeat Mr. Vick' s claim of
attorney-client privilege.
Defendants have attempted to articulate relevant non-privileged information that the
subpoenas seek from Vick. They identify the following categories of information:
(1) "percipient knowledge of decisions made during prosecution and of events such as interviews
with Examiners;" (2) "communications relating to the patents-in-suit with other non-parties,
including the former owner Aware and the named inventors, and with TQ Delta;" (3) knowledge
regarding "standards essentiality[; (4)] knowledge of participation by Aware or named inventors
in standards setting organizations[; (5)] knowledge of the identity of any prior art standard
Aware or the named inventors were aware of during the prosecution;" and (6) "knowledge of
Aware' s business model."3 (D.I. 22 at 6). Defendants assert that the first two categories are
"highly relevant to issues in the underlying patent litigations, including invalidity." (Id.). The
third and fourth are asserted to be relevant to whether the patents-in-suit are essential to
standards adopted by the International Telecommunication Union. (Id.) . The fifth is alleged to
be relevant to Defendants' identification of certain standards as prior art. (Id.).
The sixth is
asserted to be relevant to damages. (Id.).
3
The enumerated relevant information is far narrower than the overbroad requests contained in
the subpoenas. This is further evidence that the document requests were not articulated with
particularity.
5
The first two categories of purported relevant information that Defendants articulate
either fall within the attorney-client privilege claimed by Vick or are reflected in the public
prosecution file. To seek information about decisions made during patent prosecution is to seek
the communications between the attorney and client in determining how best to prosecute the
patent. This is a clear example of legal advice intended to be protected by the attorney-client
privilege. In re Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc., 203 F.3d 800, 805 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(recognizing that information is often provided to counsel "for legal advice on patentability or
for legal services in preparing a patent application"); SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex
Corp., 232 F.R.D. 467,480 (E.D. Pa. 2005) ("communication is privileged as long as it was
made for the purpose of securing legal advice or legal services"). Similarly, communications
between Vick and Plaintiff or Aware or regarding the patents, the preparation of the application,
the filing of the application, and the prosecution of the application are also protected by the
attorney-client privilege. Furthermore, interviews with patent examiners and the content of
those interviews are part of the public record in patent prosecution histories and therefore,
Defendants do not need this discovery from Vick. MPEP ยง 713.04 (9th ed. Rev. 8, Jan. 2018).
However, enumerated items 3-6 appear to be both relevant and targeted at non-privileged
factual information, rather than communications between attorney and client during patent
prosecution. Defendants have asserted an affirmative defense that " [t]he patents-in-suit are
unenforceable because [Plaintiff] or its predecessor-in-interest had an obligation to disclose them
to the [International Telecommunication Union] in the course of the standard-setting process,
[Plaintiff] was aware of its disclosure obligations, and [Plaintiff] failed to disclose the relevant
patents." (No. 13-cv-1835-RGA, D.I. 44 ,r 172). The information sought appears to be relevant
6
to this affirmative defense. 4 Additionally, Defendants have stated that Aware' s business model
is relevant to the issue of damages. (D.I. 22 at 6). Plaintiff and Vick assert that the factual
information sought is still privileged "because any such ' knowledge of Aware' would only be
known to[] Vick, if at all, because of his representation of his client." (D.I. 23 at 9). They also
assert that if any such information is relevant, that information "should be obtained from Aware,
not its counsel." (Id. at 10.). However, A ware is also a nonparty here, and as Defendants point
out, underlying facts are not protected under the attorney-client privilege.
Upjohn, 449 U.S. at
396. Therefore, the subpoenas will be modified to permit discovery solely of (1) documents or
communications related to standards essentiality of the asserted patents, (2) participation of
Aware or named inventors in standards setting organizations, (3) the identity of any prior art
standard Aware or the named inventors were aware of during the prosecution of the asserted
patents, and (4) Aware ' s business model. Vick is free to assert the attorney-client privilege for
any relevant documents or communications by providing a privilege log and by objecting to
questions at his deposition.
E. Sanctions
Rule 45(d)(l) provides,
A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take
reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject
to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must
enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction-which may include lost
4
The parties dispute whether Defendants have properly pled inequitable conduct by including an
affirmative defense of unenforceability that would support a subpoena targeted to nonpublic
information that Vick may have. (D.I. 1 at 12-13 ; D.I. 22 at 6). The Court notes that the time
to amend pleadings has passed and that inequitable conduct must be pled with particularity under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 575 F.3d 1312,
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009). However, because there are affirmative defenses asserted to which the
articulated information is relevant, the Court declines to address whether inequitable conduct has
been properly pled.
7
earnings and reasonable attorney' s fees--on a party or attorney who fails to
comply.
"It does not automatically follow that because the Court has [modified] the subpoenas
[Defendants] acted unreasonably in issuing or relying upon them." Havens v. Maritime
Comm 'ns/Land Mobile, LLC, 2014 WL 2094035 , at *5 (D.N.J. May 20, 2014); see also SAJ
Distributors, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 2008 WL 2668953 , at *3 (D.N.J. June 27, 2008) ("attorney
fees are generally awarded only in the most egregious of circumstances, such as when a party has
clearly breached Rule 45"). Here, it does not appear that Plaintiff and Vick attempted to meet
and confer with Defendants before filing the motion to quash. (D.I. 22 at 14). Moreover,
Defendants have stated that they are willing to meet and confer with Plaintiff to modify requests.
(Id. at 12). Additionally, Vick has not alleged that he has undertaken the expense or
inconvenience of compliance. Therefore, the Court does not discern good reason to impose
sanctions upon Defendants and the request for sanctions is denied.
III.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff and Vick ' s
Motion to Quash. An accompanying order will be entered.
8
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?