Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-mc-00018/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-mc-00018-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SQUARE D COMPANY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-mc-0018 GEB EFB 

vs.

JRL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC., Case no. CV 07-5787 SVW (ssx)

Pending in the C.D. of California

Defendant. 

 /

This matter before the undersigned on February 27, 2008, for hearing on moving party

Square D Company’s motion to compel compliance with a subpoena served on non-party Art

Bustos, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B)(i). Chung-Han Lee appeared as counsel for the

moving party and Mr. Art Bustos appeared on his own behalf. For the reasons stated on the

record at the hearing, Square D’s motion is granted, and Mr. Bustos is ordered to comply with

the subpoena within twenty days from the date of the hearing. 

The underlying action between Square D Company (“Square D”) and JRL Electric

Supply, Inc., which is pending in the Central District of California, and concerns Square D’s

claims that JRL Electric Supply (“JRL”) unlawfully sold counterfeit Square D circuit breakers in

violation of the Lanham Act. Through discovery, Square D learned that Mr. Bustos is one of

JRL’s primary suppliers of Square D circuit breakers. See Exs. C, D to Square D’s Motion. 

Case 2:08-mc-00018-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 03/14/08 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

2

On January 2, 2008, Square D served a subpoena on Mr. Bustos requesting that he

produce documents in his possessing reflecting his purchase, import, distribution and sale of

Square D circuit breakers from January 1, 2000, to the present. See Exh. E. to Motion.

Mr. Bustos has repeatedly refused to comply with the subpoena, making several

unavailing objections. For example, he has argued that the subpoena is unduly burdensome

because it requires him to travel more than one hundred miles from his residence. To the

contrary, the subpoena requests that he produce responsive documents at his place of business. 

Mr. Bustos has also argued that he needs to review JRL’s answer to the complaint before he can

comply with the subpoena. The court has reviewed the subpoena and the categories of

documents identified therein and finds it sufficiently clear and particularized to guide Mr.

Bustos’ production of documents. At the hearing, Mr. Bustos was unable to offer any valid

reason to justify his non-compliance with the subpoena. 

Accordingly, Square D’s motion to compel compliance with the subpoena is granted, and

Mr. Bustos is ordered to comply within twenty-one days from the date of the hearing. 

SO ORDERED

DATED: March 13, 2008.

Case 2:08-mc-00018-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 03/14/08 Page 2 of 2