Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-mc-80003/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-mc-80003-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

Case No.: 15-mc-80003-NC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROCKET LAWYER, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.15-mc-80003-NC 

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION 

TO COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Plaintiff LegalZoom moves to compel the production of documents subpoenaed 

from non-party Google Inc. under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. A hearing on this 

matter is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon in front of this Court. 

A party issuing a subpoena “must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue 

burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). 

Moreover, the Court must limit discovery if it determines that the burden or expense of the 

proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

Here, the Court’s tentative view is to deny LegalZoom’s motion to compel because 

LegalZoom has not taken reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden, and has not 

established the proportionality of its requests. See Nalco Co. v. Turner Designs, Inc., No. 

13-cv-02727 NC, 2014 WL 1311571, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014) (denying motion to 

compel because subpoenaing party failed to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue 

burden) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)); see also In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & 

Case 5:15-mc-80003-NC Document 8 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 2
Case No.:15-mc-80003-NC 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Likeness Licensing Litig., No. 09-cv-01967 CW (NC), 2012 WL 629225, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Feb. 27, 2012) (“[B]ecause antitrust plaintiffs did not make reasonable attempts to avoid 

imposing an undue burden on the nonparties, sanctions against antitrust plaintiffs are 

warranted under Rule 45.”); Convolve, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., No. 10-cv-80071 WHA, 2011 WL 

1766486, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011) (quashing subpoena and noting exhaustive 

definitions to words such as “documents” and “identify” serve to further broaden the scope 

of the subpoena unnecessarily). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-mc-80003-NC Document 8 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 2