Anokiwave, Inc. v. Rebeiz

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 20, 2019
• Docket: 3:18-cv-00629
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 ANOKIWAVE, INC., a Delaware Case No.: 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

7 corporation, ORDER ON NON-PARTY JAZZ 8 Plaintiff, SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA 9 v.

10 GABRIEL REBEIZ, an individual; [ECF NO. 76] 11 SPECTRABEAM, LLC, a Delaware 12 limited liability company; TUMAY 13 KANAR, an individual; SAMET 14 ZIHIR, an individual; INTEGRATED 15 DEVICE TECHNOLOGY, INC., a 16 Delaware corporation; and DOES 1- 17 20 inclusive 18 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 Before the Court is a motion by Defendants to quash or modify a 23 subpoena to non-party Jazz Semiconductor, Inc., served by Plaintiff. Jazz is 24 one of the leading foundries that fabricates semiconductor chips for RF chip 25 designers, including Defendants. Through the subpoena, Plaintiff generally 26 seeks documents regarding communications between Jazz and Defendants regarding their RF chips. 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 Rule 45, Fed. R. Civ. P., governs obtaining information by subpoena 3 from non-parties. Under Rule 45(d)(1), the requesting party or attorney 4 “must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a 5 person subject to the subpoena.” A non-party subject to a subpoena duces 6 tecum “deserve[s] extra protection from the courts.” High Tech Medical 7 Instrumentation v. New Image Indus., 161 F.R.D. 86, 88 (N.D. Cal. 1995) 8 (citing United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 666 F.2d 364, 371–72 9 (9th Cir. 1982)). And, Rule 45(d)(1) requires the court to “enforce this duty 10 and impose an appropriate sanction . . . on a party or attorney who fails to 11 comply.” 12 Apart from the special duty imposed on the requesting party by Rule 13 45(d)(1), Rule 26(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that discovery may be obtained 14 only if it is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 15 needs of the case. See Soto v. Castlerock Farming & Transp., Inc., 282 F.R.D. 16 492, 503 (E.D. Cal. 2012). 17 DISCUSSION 18 The subpoena includes 21 different document requests. Defendants 19 object to each request claiming that the requests are overbroad and unduly 20 burdensome to Jazz. Plaintiff correctly points out that Defendants have no 21 standing to object on the grounds that production is unduly burdensome 22 because it is not their burden to produce the documents. Jazz has made no 23 such objection. Therefore, the only objection the Court will consider is 24 whether or not the requests are overbroad or seek irrelevant information. 25 Contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments, the fact that Jazz has agreed to produce 26 relevant documents does not overcome Defendants’ proper objections. 1 1. Requests 1-11 2 Requests 1-4 and 7-11 seek all documents relating to Defendants and 3 “RF Chips” during the relevant period and all communications between 4 Defendants and Jazz. Requests 5-6 seek all documents relating to the 5 development and design of RF chips between Jazz and SpectraBeam during 6 the relevant time period. Defendants contend that these requests actually 7 seek the technical details of all of Defendants’ chips. Defendants explain that 8 Jazz’s customers, including Defendants, send their “highly-detailed, 9 confidential, and competitively-sensitive technical data” that is required for 10 Jazz to fabricate the chips. Plaintiff does not challenge this explanation. 11 As an initial matter, to the extent the requests seek information about 12 all “RF Chips” and not just the chips at issue, it is overbroad. Further, both 13 Plaintiff and Defendants have sought the technical details of each other’s 14 chips through highly contested discovery requests. In a separate order, the 15 Court has refused to compel production of the technical details of the chips at 16 issue absent a showing that the technical details of the chips are at issue in 17 this trade secret litigation. These requests appear to seek the same 18 information that the Court has already denied. Therefore, Defendants’ 19 motion to quash requests 1-11 is GRANTED. 20 2. Requests 11-12 21 Requests 11 and 12 seek all documents relating to the testing of arrays 22 for RF chips and related to funding for development of RF chips during the 23 relevant time period. Defendants argue that the request is overbroad as 24 currently framed. To the extent the requests seek information about all “RF 25 Chips” and not just the chips at issue, it is overbroad. Defendants’ motion to 26 quash is GRANTED in part. Jazz must respond to the requests for the 1 9 3. Requests 13-16 3 Requests 13-16 seek documents between Jazz and each Defendant that 4 ||relate to Anokiwave during the relevant time period. Defendant objects 5 || generally claiming the request is overbroad in that it has no end date and 6 ||constitutes impermissible fishing. The Court disagrees. Defendants’ motion 7 ||to quash is DENIED. 4. Request 17 9 Through this request, Anokiwave seeks all documents relating to 10 ||antenna array testing using Anokiwave RF chips. Defendant repeats its 11 |;objections. However, the Court fails to see why Defendants take issue with 12 ||Anokiwave seeking information about its own RF chips. Defendants’ motion 13 quash is DENIED. 14 5. Requests 18-21 15 Requests 18-21 seek all agreements between Jazz and Defendants 16 ||related to RF chips. To the extent the requests seek information about all 17 ||“RF Chips” and not just the chips at issue, it is overbroad. Defendants’ 18 || motion to quash is GRANTED in part. Jazz must respond to the requests 19 ||for the chips at issue. 20 CONCLUSION 21 The motion to quash is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN 99 ||PART. Jazz Semiconductor, Inc., must respond to Requests 13-17 in full and 93 11-12 and 18-21 as amended of the subpoena duces tecum as provided herein. 94 || Jazz need not respond to the balance of the Requests. 95 ||Dated: August 19, 2019 . Miter Sou Le Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 27 United States Magistrate Judge