Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-mc-80209/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-mc-80209-0/pdf.json

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

---

ORDER (No. 3:15-mc-80209-LB) 

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 

San Francisco Division 

In the Matter of the Arbitration between

TANG ENERGY GROUP, LTD, et al. 

Claimants, 

v. 

CATIC U.S.A., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:15-mc-80209-LB 

ORDER DIRECTING IMMEDIATE 

MEET AND CONFER AND 

EXPEDITED SUBMISSION OF A 

JOINT LETTER BRIEF 

[Re: ECF Nos. 1, 2] 

On July 23, 2015, for an arbitration pending in Dallas, Texas, claimant Tang Energy Group 

submitted a witness list that included non-party Cedric Chao. (Chao Decl., ECF No. 1-1, ¶ 17 & 

Ex. C.1

). Mr. Chao represents two companies named as respondents in the arbitration, Aviation 

Industry Corporation of China and China Aviation Industry General Aircraft Co., Ltd.; according 

to Mr. Chao, they are not signatories to the arbitration agreement and have objected to their 

inclusion in the arbitration. (Id. ¶¶ 10-12.) Tang Energy Group’s counsel Robert Jenevein applied 

to the arbitration panel for, and the panel issued, a subpoena for Mr. Chao’s testimony before the 

panel in Dallas, Texas, on August 10, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. (Id. ¶ 18.). Mr. Jenevein’s associate 

emailed and faxed the subpoena to Mr. Chao on July 29, 2015, while Mr. Chao was out of the 

 

1

 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of the documents. 

Case 3:15-mc-80209-LB Document 4 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

ORDER (No. 3:15-mc-80209-LB) 

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 

country. (Id. ¶¶ 19-20.) On August 3, 2015, Mr. Chao received the subpoena by certified mail. (Id.

¶ 21.)

To avoid any dispute before the arbitration panel on the validity of the subpoena, Mr. Chao 

moved to quash the subpoena on the following grounds: (1) it was not properly served and even if 

it was, it directs an appearance more than 100 miles from Mr. Chao’s principal place of business, 

in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A) and 45(d)(3)(A)(ii); (2) it is invalid because it is 

directed to opposing counsel without any justifying circumstances; (3) it is invalid because it calls 

for information that is protected from disclosure under either attorney-client privilege or the 

attorney work-product doctrine; (4) it seeks testimony on issues that are not arbitrable; and (5) the 

subpoena is harassment, which is demonstrated by its attempt to gain protected and privileged 

information. (Motion, ECF No. 1 at 3, 16-27.) Mr. Chao asked for a shortened briefing and 

hearing schedule, with an opposition due August 5, 2015, a reply due August 6, 2015, and an 

August 7, 2015 hearing. (Motion to Shorten Time, ECF No. 2.) Given the timing, the court orders 

the following process. 

Lead counsel must confer by any means (including email) by Wednesday, August 5, 2015, at 

9:00 a.m. Pacific time. Lead counsel then must confer by telephone by 10:00 a.m. Pacific time. If 

that process does not resolve the dispute, then Tang Energy Group must e-mail Mr. Chao (or his 

designee) a five-page letter brief by 2:00 p.m. Pacific time. The court suggests that Tang Energy 

Group focus its efforts only on the five challenges that Mr. Chao raises. Mr. Chao then has until 

5:00 p.m. Pacific time to add a three-page reply to Tang Energy Group’s letter and then e-file it as 

a joint letter brief. The brief must be filed on ECF under the Civil Events category of “Motions 

and Related Filings > Motions – General > Discovery Letter Brief.” (This process is a 

modification of the court’s discovery-dispute procedures set forth in its standing order, which is 

attached.) The court will look at the letter and either set it for hearing or order the appropriate 

relief. The parties are advised that if the court sets a hearing, it likely will be some time on 

Thursday, August 6, 2015, during a break in trial. If this process resolves the dispute, Mr. Chao 

must notify the court by 5:00 p.m. Pacific time on August 5, 2015. 

Case 3:15-mc-80209-LB Document 4 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

ORDER (No. 3:15-mc-80209-LB) 

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 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 4, 2015 ______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-mc-80209-LB Document 4 Filed 08/04/15 Page 3 of 3