Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00629/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00629-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANOKIWAVE, INC., a Delaware 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

GABRIEL REBEIZ, an individual; 

SPECTRABEAM, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company; TUMAY 

KANAR, an individual; SAMET 

ZIHIR, an individual; INTEGRATED 

DEVICE TECHNOLOGY, INC., a 

Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-

20 inclusive

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

ORDER ON NON-PARTY JAZZ 

SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. MOTION 

TO QUASH SUBPOENA

[ECF NO. 76]

Before the Court is a motion by Defendants to quash or modify a 

subpoena to non-party Jazz Semiconductor, Inc., served by Plaintiff. Jazz is 

one of the leading foundries that fabricates semiconductor chips for RF chip 

designers, including Defendants. Through the subpoena, Plaintiff generally 

seeks documents regarding communications between Jazz and Defendants 

regarding their RF chips. 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 88 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

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

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 45, Fed. R. Civ. P., governs obtaining information by subpoena 

from non-parties. Under Rule 45(d)(1), the requesting party or attorney 

“must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a 

person subject to the subpoena.” A non-party subject to a subpoena duces 

tecum “deserve[s] extra protection from the courts.” High Tech Medical 

Instrumentation v. New Image Indus., 161 F.R.D. 86, 88 (N.D. Cal. 1995) 

(citing United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 666 F.2d 364, 371–72 

(9th Cir. 1982)). And, Rule 45(d)(1) requires the court to “enforce this duty 

and impose an appropriate sanction . . . on a party or attorney who fails to 

comply.” 

Apart from the special duty imposed on the requesting party by Rule 

45(d)(1), Rule 26(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that discovery may be obtained 

only if it is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 

needs of the case. See Soto v. Castlerock Farming & Transp., Inc., 282 F.R.D. 

492, 503 (E.D. Cal. 2012).

DISCUSSION

The subpoena includes 21 different document requests. Defendants 

object to each request claiming that the requests are overbroad and unduly 

burdensome to Jazz. Plaintiff correctly points out that Defendants have no 

standing to object on the grounds that production is unduly burdensome 

because it is not their burden to produce the documents. Jazz has made no 

such objection. Therefore, the only objection the Court will consider is 

whether or not the requests are overbroad or seek irrelevant information. 

Contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments, the fact that Jazz has agreed to produce 

relevant documents does not overcome Defendants’ proper objections. 

///

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 88 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

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

1. Requests 1-11

Requests 1-4 and 7-11 seek all documents relating to Defendants and 

“RF Chips” during the relevant period and all communications between 

Defendants and Jazz. Requests 5-6 seek all documents relating to the 

development and design of RF chips between Jazz and SpectraBeam during

the relevant time period. Defendants contend that these requests actually 

seek the technical details of all of Defendants’ chips. Defendants explain that 

Jazz’s customers, including Defendants, send their “highly-detailed, 

confidential, and competitively-sensitive technical data” that is required for 

Jazz to fabricate the chips. Plaintiff does not challenge this explanation. 

As an initial matter, to the extent the requests seek information about 

all “RF Chips” and not just the chips at issue, it is overbroad. Further, both 

Plaintiff and Defendants have sought the technical details of each other’s 

chips through highly contested discovery requests. In a separate order, the 

Court has refused to compel production of the technical details of the chips at 

issue absent a showing that the technical details of the chips are at issue in 

this trade secret litigation. These requests appear to seek the same 

information that the Court has already denied. Therefore, Defendants’ 

motion to quash requests 1-11 is GRANTED. 

2. Requests 11-12

Requests 11 and 12 seek all documents relating to the testing of arrays 

for RF chips and related to funding for development of RF chips during the 

relevant time period. Defendants argue that the request is overbroad as 

currently framed. To the extent the requests seek information about all “RF 

Chips” and not just the chips at issue, it is overbroad. Defendants’ motion to 

quash is GRANTED in part. Jazz must respond to the requests for the 

chips at issue. 

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 88 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-cv-00629-JLS-MDD

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

 

3. Requests 13-16

Requests 13-16 seek documents between Jazz and each Defendant that 

relate to Anokiwave during the relevant time period. Defendant objects 

generally claiming the request is overbroad in that it has no end date and 

constitutes impermissible fishing. The Court disagrees. Defendants’ motion 

to quash is DENIED. 

4. Request 17

Through this request, Anokiwave seeks all documents relating to 

antenna array testing using Anokiwave RF chips. Defendant repeats its 

objections. However, the Court fails to see why Defendants take issue with 

Anokiwave seeking information about its own RF chips. Defendants’ motion 

to quash is DENIED. 

5. Requests 18-21

Requests 18-21 seek all agreements between Jazz and Defendants 

related to RF chips. To the extent the requests seek information about all 

“RF Chips” and not just the chips at issue, it is overbroad. Defendants’ 

motion to quash is GRANTED in part. Jazz must respond to the requests 

for the chips at issue. 

CONCLUSION

The motion to quash is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN 

PART. Jazz Semiconductor, Inc., must respond to Requests 13-17 in full and 

11-12 and 18-21 as amended of the subpoena duces tecum as provided herein. 

Jazz need not respond to the balance of the Requests. 

Dated: August 19, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00629-JLS-AHG Document 88 Filed 08/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4