Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00335/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00335-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

- 1 - 08cv335

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv335-IEG(NLS)

Order Denying Motion to Quash 

vs. Trial Subpoena

AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS

CORP.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Presidio Components, Inc. (“Presidio”) has filed an ex parte application to quash

trial subpoenas issued by Defendant American Technical Ceramics Corp. (“ATC”). ATC filed an

opposition. A hearing was held before Chief Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on November 30, 2009, at

which time the Court denied Presidio’s motion to quash. At the hearing, however, Presidio argued

for the first time that the Court should quash ATC’s subpoena to one of the witnesses, Gunter

Vorlop, because he resides in Northern California. Presidio argued that because Vorlop resides

more than 100 miles from the Court, ATC cannot secure his attendance at trial through a Rule 45

trial subpoena. 

Rule 45 ordinarily limits the scope of a subpoena issued thereunder to witnesses residing

within 100 miles of the place designated for trial. However, Rule 45(b)(2)(C) provides that a

subpoena may be served “at any place: ... (C) within the state of the issuing court if a state statute

or court rule allows service at that place of a subpoena issued by a state court of general

Case 3:08-cv-00335-IEG-NLS Document 276 Filed 11/30/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 08cv335

jurisdiction sitting in the place specified for the ... trial.” Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1989,

persons who are residents of California may be subpoenaed to appear and testify in any court in

the state. William E. Wegner, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Trials & Evid. § 1:51 (Rutter Group

2009). Because the California Code of Civil Procedure permits statewide service of trial

subpoenas, ATC may issue a Rule 45 subpoena to compel Mr. Vorlop’s attendance at trial in this

Court. Presidio’s motion to quash the subpoena to Mr. Vorlop is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 30, 2009

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-00335-IEG-NLS Document 276 Filed 11/30/09 Page 2 of 2