Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-mc-80057/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-mc-80057-0/pdf.json

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

---

Case No.: 15-mc-80057-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

SIDNEY GORDON AND JEFFREY 

TAUBER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SIGMA DESIGNS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.15-mc-80057-NC 

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION 

TO COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Petitioners Sidney Gordon and Jeffrey Tauber move to compel the production of 

documents subpoenaed from non-party Sigma 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 petitioners’ motion to compel because

petitioners have not taken reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden, and have not 

established the proportionality of their 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 

Case 5:15-mc-80057-NC Document 17 Filed 02/24/15 Page 1 of 2
Case No.:15-mc-80057-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

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

& 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-80057-NC Document 17 Filed 02/24/15 Page 2 of 2