Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00578/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00578-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

PATENT TECHNOLOGY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAWRENCE WOODMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00578-DMR 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO 

COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 44

Plaintiff Patent Technology, LLC filed a motion to compel “administrative” discovery 

from third parties Bank of America and Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”). [Docket No. 44.] 

The court has determined that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(a). For the following reasons, the court orders Bank of America 

and Microsoft to respond to Plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoenas.

I. DISCUSSION 

A. Background and Procedural History

This lawsuit stems from Plaintiff’s attempts to ship a trunk believed to contain $1.2 million 

in cash from Malaysia to the United States. In its amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that in 

April 2013, Plaintiff and a person named Marry Juliet Smith communicated via Skype and agreed 

that in exchange for $20,000, Plaintiff would receive and become the claimant of a trunk 

containing $1.2 million that allegedly belonged to Smith and would be shipped from Malaysia to 

the United States. Am. Compl. ¶ 17. From April until August 2013, Plaintiff sent money to 

various bank accounts in varying amounts for the payment of fees and taxes associated with the 

shipment of the trunk. This included payments to Smith and to Defendants PT Express and 

Security Company (“PT”) and Tao A. Olagoke, including an April 22, 2013 payment of $11,500 

by Plaintiff to PT via transfer to a Bank of America bank account. Am. Compl. ¶ 30. After 

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 58 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 4
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

several months, Plaintiff refused to make any additional payments associated with the delivery of 

the trunk, (Am. Compl. ¶ 108), and the trunk was never delivered to Plaintiff. Plaintiff sues PT, 

Lawrence Woodman, Tao Olagoke, AIG Import and Export Company, and Ibrahim G. Ahmed for 

breach of contract, money had and received, and fraud. It also names several other “potential 

defendant[s],” including Smith and her associate, a Mr. McCandles, who allegedly is an attorney. 

Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11. 

On July 27, 2015, the court granted in part Plaintiff’s motions for early discovery of thirdparty information in order to discover the true identities and contact information for the named 

Defendants and potential Defendants so that Plaintiff may serve Defendants with this lawsuit. 

[Docket No. 36 (Order on Mot. for Discovery).] The court found Plaintiff had shown good cause 

to serve early discovery on third party Microsoft for the accountholder’s name, address, phone 

number, birth date, other known email addresses, profile URL, or other information that identifies 

the accountholder for the Skype accounts “juliet.smith85” and “marry.juliet33” and the Outlook 

account “proproperty-lawchamber@outlook.com,” accounts allegedly used by Smith and 

McCandles to communicate with Plaintiff about the delivery of the trunk. Order on Mot. for 

Discovery at 7. The court also granted Plaintiff leave to serve early discovery on third party Bank 

of America for information associated with a specific account number purportedly belonging to 

Defendant PT, including 1) documents sufficient to show names, addresses, and other contact 

information of the accountholder and 2) documents sufficient to show any payments or deposits 

made to the account, including via wire transfer, of $11,500 on April 22, 2013. Order on Mot. for 

Discovery at 11.

Plaintiff served Bank of America with a Rule 45 subpoena and a copy of the court’s July 

27, 2015 order on August 3, 2015. (Klicpera Decl., Sept. 22, 2015, ¶ 2, Ex. A.) It served 

Microsoft with a subpoena and a copy of the court’s July 27, 2015 order on August 4, 2015. 

(Klicpera Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. B.) Both subpoenas requested production of documents within thirty 

days of the date of service. Plaintiff asserts that Bank of America and Microsoft have failed to 

respond to the subpoenas in any way. 

On September 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel administrative discovery, 

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 58 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 4
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

apparently seeking a court order compelling Bank of America and Microsoft to respond to the 

subpoenas. [Docket No. 41.] The court subsequently denied the motion without prejudice on the 

grounds that it was procedurally defective in several ways. The court also noted that Plaintiff had 

not attached copies of the actual subpoenas it had served on Bank of America and Microsoft, and 

that it appeared that Plaintiff had not served its motion on those entities, since it had not filed a 

proof of service of the motion. [Docket No. 43.] 

Plaintiff filed the present motion, which is its second motion to compel administrative 

discovery, on September 22, 2015. [Docket No. 44.] On September 24, 2015, the court issued an 

order noting that Plaintiff had again failed to provide any proof that it had served its motion to 

compel on Bank of America and Microsoft. It ordered Plaintiff to serve Bank of America and 

Microsoft with a copy of the order and the motion to compel and to file a proof of service, and set 

a briefing schedule on the motion. [Docket No. 45.] In response, Plaintiff filed a “motion to 

reconsider and response to order re second motion to compel,” in which it indicated that it had 

already filed proofs of service for Bank of America and Microsoft. [Docket No. 46.] However, as 

the court noted in an October 2, 2015 order, the proofs of service to which Plaintiff referred 

appeared to show service of the subpoenas on Bank of America and Microsoft, and not service of 

the motion to compel. The court again ordered Plaintiff to serve the court’s order and the motion 

to compel on the third parties and to file the proofs of service by October 7, 2015. [Docket No. 

48.] Plaintiff timely filed proofs of service indicating that it served Bank of America and 

Microsoft with the motion to compel and the court’s orders. [Docket Nos. 51 (Proof of Service on 

Bank of America), 52 (Proof of Service on Microsoft).]

B. Analysis

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s motion appears to seek relief pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 26, which governs the scope of discovery, and 37(b)(2)(A), which provides that a 

court may sanction a party for failing to obey a discovery order. Plaintiff appears to base its 

motion on the third parties’ purported violation of the July 27, 2015 order, stating that Bank of 

America and Microsoft “willingly disobeyed a Federal Court Order to provide the requested 

discovery,” i.e. the July 27, 2015 order. Mot. at 7. This is improper. First, Bank of America and 

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 58 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Microsoft are not parties to this litigation. Therefore, the applicable procedural rule is Rule 45, 

which governs subpoenas to non-parties. Second, the court’s July 27, 2015 order granted Plaintiff 

leave to serve early discovery on third parties, including Bank of America and Microsoft. It did 

not order those third parties to provide discovery. Therefore, Bank of America and Microsoft 

have not violated a court order.

The court has now examined the subpoenas served on Bank of America and Microsoft. 

(Klicpera Decl. Exs. A, B.) Each subpoena complies with the requirements of Rule 45(a), in that 

it states the court from which it issued, states the title of this action and its civil-action number, 

commands the third parties to produce documents in response to requests for production, and sets 

out the text of Rule 45(d) and (e). See Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(i)-(iv). The court has also examined the 

proofs of service of the subpoenas and Plaintiff’s motion to compel. It appears that Plaintiff 

properly served Bank of America and Microsoft with the subpoenas, Plaintiff’s motion to compel, 

and the relevant court orders. However, neither Bank of America nor Microsoft responded or 

objected to the subpoenas, filed any opposition to the present motion, or moved pursuant to Rule 

45(d) to quash or modify the subpoenas. Accordingly, the court now orders third parties Bank 

of America and Microsoft to respond to Plaintiff’s subpoenas and produce responsive 

documents to Plaintiff within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders third parties Bank of America and Microsoft 

Corporation to respond to Plaintiff’s subpoenas and produce responsive documents within twentyone (21) days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff shall immediately serve a copy of this order on Bank of America and 

Microsoft Corporation and file a proof of service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 58 Filed 11/10/15 Page 4 of 4