Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-mc-00096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-mc-00096-0/pdf.json

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

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Autodesk, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dassault Systèmes Solidworks

Corporation, a Delaware corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. MC-09-00096-PHX-FJM

(United States District Court Northern District

of California Case No. 3:08-CV-04397-WHA)

ORDER

The court has before it Autodesk Inc. (“Autodesk”)’s motion to compel (doc. 1), The

Open Design Alliance (“ODA”)’s response, motion for leave to exceed the page limit, and

lodged motion for protective order (doc. 11, 12, & 20), and Autodesk’s reply/response (doc.

21).

We grant ODA’s motion for leave to exceed the page limit only so that we may

consider the merits on a timely basis. There is, however, no justification for the abusive

length of the motion for protective order.

 Autodesk moves to compel nonparty ODA to comply with a subpoena for deposition

and production of documents served on June 2, 2009. ODA contends that it did not receive

proper notice of the motion to compel and that the subpoena poses an undue burden or

expense under Rule 45, Fed. R. Civ. P., due to ODA’s small size and its earlier discovery in

a separate proceeding. ODA also moves for a protective order and to quash or modify the

Case 2:09-mc-00096-FJM Document 22 Filed 09/18/09 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 -

subpoena. ODA’s objections are both untimely under Rule 45(c)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P., and

unavailing. We find that ODA received notice and that an estimated forty hours of document

production and sixty hours of deposition preparation constitute neither an undue burden

under the circumstances nor a justification for a three-month delay. We deny ODA’s motion

for protective order and grant Autodesk’s motion to compel.

We note that counsel held ongoing negotiations concerning earlier discovery without

resolution. If ODA chooses to make its earlier discovery admissible in Autodesk’s current

action, it may offer it in partial response to the subpoena. Regardless, ODA must comply

with the subpoena as written. We also note that there is a September 25, 2009 deadline for

close of discovery.

We grant Autodesk’s request for Rule 37(a)(5), Fed. R. Civ. P., expenses associated

with the motion to compel and we deny ODA’s request for attorney’s fees. ODA may move

for reimbursement of significant expenses incurred in producing documents after compliance.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED GRANTING ODA’s motion for leave to file

excess pages (doc. 12), DENYING ODA’s lodged motion for protective order (doc. 20), and

GRANTING Autodesk’s motion to compel (doc. 1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ODA:

(1) produce all documents identified in the subpoena on or before September 25, 2009

and an appropriate privilege log; and

(2) designate a Rule 30(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., witness to be deposed before September

25, 2009 for no more than seven hours at a location of ODA’s choosing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ODA pay Autodesk’s reasonable expenses,

including attorney’s fees, incurred in moving to compel.

DATED this 17th day of September, 2009.

Case 2:09-mc-00096-FJM Document 22 Filed 09/18/09 Page 2 of 2