Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00399/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00399-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

 Auburn seeks documents from OptimalTest Delaware, documents Third Party OptimalTest

Delaware contends may be in their parent company, OptimalTest Israel’s, possession. 

- 1 - 11cv399-L (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUBURN UNIVERSITY, an Alabama

Corporation,

Civil No. 11-cv-0399-L (POR)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO ENFORCE ITS

SUBPOENA TO OPTIMALTEST, INC.

AND COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

[ECF No. 2]

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES

CORP., a New York Corporation,

Defendant.

On February 25, 2011, Plaintiff Auburn University (“Auburn”) filed a Motion to Enforce its

Subpoena to OptimalTest, Inc., and Compel the Production of Documents. (ECF No. 2.) On March

17, 2011, Third Party OptimalTest, Inc. filed its Opposition. (ECF No. 6.) On March 24, 2011,

Auburn filed its Reply. (ECF No. 8.) Based upon the parties’ pleadings and the relevant law, the

Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce its Subpoena.

Auburn contends (1) OptimalTest has access to responsive documents and should be

required to produce the same, and (2) Auburn’s requests are narrowly tailored to obtain necessary

and relevant discovery from OptimalTest.

First, OptimalTest contends it has no access to responsive documents that may be in

OptimalTest Israel’s possession.1

 Second, OptimalTest contends the subpoena was improperly

served on OptimalTest Delaware’s California registered agent for service of process. Third,

Case 3:11-cv-00399-L-POR Document 9 Filed 03/30/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 11cv399-L (POR)

OptimalTest contends Auburn must comply with the Hague Convention in order to seek documents

from a non-party Israeli citizen. Fourth, OptimalTest contends Auburn fails to provide good cause

for the production of the requested documents, nor could it, since the relevant date for assessing

ownership of IBM and Auburn’s patents is 2003, years before the two separate OptimalTest entities

were even formed. Finally, for the aforementioned reasons, OptimalTest seeks attorneys fees

pursuant to FRCP 45(c)(1) in light of the more than $10,000 OptimalTest has incurred in dealing

with Auburn’s requests.

Generally, a non-party subsidiary cannot be compelled to produce documents in its foreign

parent company’s possession. See, e.g., Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l,

Inc., 233 F.R.D. 143, 145-46 (D. Del. 2005). As this Court held in LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei

Optroelectronics Corp., Civil No. 08cv2408-L (POR), “[a] subsidiary will be deemed to have

possession, custody or control of documents held by its parent company only in certain

circumstances.” Specifically, courts hold that a subsidiary has possession, custody, or control of

documents held by its parent where the relationship is such that the subsidiary can secure documents

of the parent to meet its own business needs. See, e.g. Cooper Indus. v. British Aerospace Corp.,

102 F.R.D. 918, 919 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). 

Both the United States and Israel are signatories to the Hague Convention. The United

States Supreme Court has held there is no blanket rule that one must follow the Hague Convention

when seeking foreign discovery; rather, the Court engages in a “particularized analysis” of the facts

in each case, sovereign interests, and the availability of discovery under the Hague Convention

before determining how to proceed. Societe Nat. Ind. Aero v. U.S. Dist. Court, 482 U.S. 522, 544

(1987). 

Based thereon, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Auburn has not sufficiently demonstrated Optimal has possession, custody or control

over the requested documents. Furthermore, Auburn has not complied with the

Hague Convention. Based thereon, the Court hereby DENIES Auburn’s Motion to

Enforce.

2. To the extent Third Party OptimalTest seeks attorneys fees:

Case 3:11-cv-00399-L-POR Document 9 Filed 03/30/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 11cv399-L (POR)

a. Third Party OptimalTest may file a formal motion for attorneys fees, if any,

on or before April 11, 2011.

b. Plaintiff Auburn may file an Opposition, if any, on or before April 18, 2011.

c. OptimalTest’s motion, if filed, shall be heard on April 21, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. 

Without further court order, no appearances are required at that hearing. 

OptimalTest’s motion shall be deemed submitted on the papers at that time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 30, 2011

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00399-L-POR Document 9 Filed 03/30/11 Page 3 of 3