Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-508/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This Order Relates To:

Case No. 13-cv-1173-JST (N.D. Cal.)

SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION; 

SHARP ELECTRONICS 

MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF 

AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HITACHI, LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

 MDL No. 1917

Case No. C-07-5944 JST

ORDER CONTINUING SUBPOENA

ECF No. 4958

Before the Court is the Toshiba Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial Subpoena. ECF No. 

4958. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court originally set this case for trial beginning on September 6, 2016. ECF No. 

4242. On March 16, 2016, the Toshiba Defendants served Nobuo Harada, a Sharp employee, with 

a trial subpoena in Memphis that directed him to appear at the September trial. ECF No, 4958-8. 

The Toshiba Defendants claim Harada is a key witness at trial. ECF No. 4958 at 9. On May 4, 

2016, the Court continued the trial until January 9, 2017. ECF No. 4628. In August 2016, the 

Toshiba Defendants attempted to serve Harada with an amended subpoena reflecting the January 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5039 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 3
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

trial date, but Sharp employees in Memphis informed the process server that Harada had retired 

and moved to Japan. ECF No, 4958-9. In response, the Toshiba Defendants filed this motion. 

II. ANALYSIS

In opposition to Defendants’ motion, Sharp argues that the Harada subpoena was, and 

continues to be, invalid. ECF No. 4972 at 8. Sharp asserts that the March subpoena violated the 

geographic limits in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c) because Harada was residing in 

Memphis and that an order continuing the subpoena would be improper because Harada relocated 

to Japan. Id. These arguments should be made in a motion to quash, not in opposition to a motion 

to continue. In their reply brief, the Toshiba Defendants claim that to the extent Sharp is moving 

to quash the Harada subpoena, that motion is untimely and fails on the merits. ECF No. 4988 at 9. 

Just as the Court will not rule on a motion to quash that was not filed, it also will not assess 

whether that yet-to-be made motion is timely or meritorious. 

Turning to the merits of the Toshiba Defendants’ motion to continue, the Court agrees that 

the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Snyder controls. 413 F.2d 288 (9th Cir. 1969). In 

that case, the U.S. Attorney’s Office served Snyder with a subpoena that directed him to appear on 

February 20, 1968. Id. at 288. Snyder, however, was not called to testify on that date. Instead, 

the U.S. Attorneys’ Office sent him a message directing him to appear in court in April 9, 1968. 

Id. at 289. Snyder refused. Id. Rejecting Snyder’s argument that his duty under the subpoena did 

not extend beyond the original date, the court held that “the subpoena creates a continuing 

obligation until the person subpoenaed has been released from it.” Id. 

In so holding, the Snyder court relied on an earlier Supreme Court decision, Blackmer v. 

United States, 284 U.S. 421 (1932). In Blackmer, the Court confronted a situation like the present 

one, in which the “defendant had been subpoenaed for April 2, 1928, but the case was continued 

for trial to April 9, 1928.” Snyder, 413 F.2d at 289. Despite the continuance, the Court held that 

“[i]t was the duty of the petitioner to respond to the subpoena and to remain in attendance until 

excused by the court or by the government’s representatives.” Blackmer, 284 U.S. at 443. In 

Snyder, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Blackmer rule applies to both civil and criminal 

subpoenas issued under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 45. Snyder, 413 F.2d at 289. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5039 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Under Snyder, the Harada subpoena remains effective although the trial was continued 

beyond the date on which Harada was directed to appear in the March subpoena. Because Sharp 

has yet to file a motion to quash, the Court need not address its argument that Snyder only applies 

to properly served subpoenas. ECF No. 4972 at 7. 

CONCLUSION

The Court grants the Toshiba Defendants’ motion to continue Harada’s trial subpoena to 

the January 2017 trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 5039 Filed 11/16/16 Page 3 of 3