Wilspec Technologies Inc v. Rugao Isen Electronic Co Ltd et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 33 defendants' Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoenas to Produce Documents or in the Alternative Motion for Protective Order (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 8/25/2017. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WILSPEC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
an Oklahoma Corporation,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
RUGAO ISEN ELECTRONIC CO., LTD., )
AKA ISEN CONTROLS, a Chinese
)
Company; and
)
CAI ZHANGLING, an Individual,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-15-1328-M

ORDER
Before the Court is defendants’ Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoenas to Produce
Documents or in the Alternative Motion for a Protective Order, filed June 12, 2017. On June 30,
2017, plaintiff filed its response, and on July 7, 2017, defendants filed their reply. Based upon the
parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
On December 4, 2015, plaintiff filed the instant action, alleging defendants unlawfully
infringed on fourteen separate pictures on which plaintiff is the copyright owner and defendants
unlawfully used the copyright pictures to sell their own product and obtain a UL Certification in
violation of the Lanham Act and Oklahoma’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, alleging, in part, that this Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. Upon
request, this Court granted plaintiff additional time to conduct jurisdictional discovery. In an effort
to discover where in the United States defendants conducted business, plaintiff issued eighteen
subpoenas (the “Subpoenas”) to various non-party companies which generally requested the
production of communications and contracts with defendants, as well as documents reflecting the
purchase or receipt of any of defendants’ products. Defendants now move this Court to quash the

Subpoenas or, in the alternative, to issue a protective order prohibiting discovery concerning any
information or actions occurring after March 24, 2013, prohibiting discovery as to any patents of
defendants at any time in China, and prohibiting discovery regarding the period from March 25,
2011 through March 24, 2013 and which is relevant to the current lawsuit between the parties in
China.
Plaintiff asserts that defendants lack standing to quash the subpoenas.
Generally speaking, a party to the lawsuit does not have standing to
quash a subpoena served on a nonparty. A motion to quash a
subpoena may only be made by the party to whom the subpoena is
directed except where the party seeking to challenge the subpoena
has a personal right or privilege with respect to the subject matter
requested in the subpoena.
Stewart v. Mitchell Transp., Civil Action No. 01-2546-JWL, 2002 WL 1558210 at *1 (D. Kan.
2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In their reply, defendants assert that defendant
Cai Zhangling has a personal right in documents which relate to his right to compete with plaintiff.1
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, as well as the Subpoenas, the Court finds that
defendants do not have any personal right or privilege with respect to the subject matter requested
in the Subpoenas. The Court, therefore, finds that defendants do not have standing to move to
quash the Subpoenas. Accordingly, the Court finds that defendants’ motion to quash should be
denied.
Defendants also move this Court for a protective order. Specifically, defendants assert that
the instant action is being used for the sole purpose of discovering evidence to support plaintiff’s
second lawsuit in China and, consequently, narrow discovery parameters should be imposed in
this case. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that defendants have

Defendants do not assert that they have any right of privilege to the documents sought through
the Subpoenas.

1

2

not sufficiently shown to this Court that the instant action is a “sham lawsuit” solely brought to
obtain evidence to be used in plaintiff’s second lawsuit in China. Accordingly, the Court finds
that defendants have not met their burden to obtain a protective order and defendants’ alternative
motion for protective order should be denied.
The Court, therefore, DENIES defendants’ Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoenas to
Produce Documents or in the Alternative Motion for Protective Order [docket no. 33].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2017.

3