Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03746/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03746-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-FILED 12/27/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CREATIVE SCIENCE SYSTEMS, INC., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

FOREX CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 04-3746 JF (RS)

ORDER RE “EX PARTE”

APPLICATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Creative Science Systems, Inc. has filed what it entitles an “ex parte application”

seeking certain relief with respect to obtaining the appearance of witnesses at trial. The presiding

judge has referred the matter to the undersigned for disposition. Although the application does not

comply fully with the Local Rules, the record is sufficient to permit a resolution and it is in the

interest of judicial efficiency to reach the merits. The primary substantive issue presented is whether

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits corporate officers of a party to be

subpoenaed to appear at trial where such persons would be forced to travel interstate distances

greater than 100 miles to comply. For reasons explained below, the Court will adopt the majority

view regarding Rule 45 and conclude that such subpoenas are proper, without prejudice to

defendant’s right to challenge the subpoenas on other grounds. 

Case 5:04-cv-03746-JF Document 325 Filed 12/27/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 This contrasts with the practice in some other jurisdictions where the term “ex parte” is

sometimes used more loosely to refer to an application made with shortened or informal notice to the

opposing party. 

2

II DISCUSSION

A. Procedure

Creative asserts that it proceeded under Civil Local Rule 7-10, which authorizes “Ex Parte

Motions,” instead of seeking to shorten time under Civil Local Rule 6-3, as a result of being advised

by an individual in the presiding judge’s chambers that the Court would “most probably prefer not to

schedule this dispute as a noticed motion.” Creative misapprehends the procedures for obtaining

expedited relief under the rules of this district. An ex parte motion filed under Rule 7-10 is “a

motion filed without notice to opposing party” and is proper only where a “statute, Federal Rule,

local rule or Standing Order authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion in the circumstances and the

party has complied with the applicable provisions allowing the party to approach the Court on an ex

parte basis.”1 

Where a party is merely seeking relief in a shorter time frame than is available under the

normal briefing and hearing schedule for a fully-noticed motion, the appropriate procedural

mechanism is always a motion to shorten time under Rule 6-3. When the party believes that the

substantive dispute must be resolved as soon as possible, the underlying motion should be filed and

served with the Rule 6-3 motion. The party may propose an appropriate briefing schedule, and may

waive the right to file a reply brief or to have a hearing, if the time constraints make doing so

advisable. Even where a party seeking expedited relief does not propose eliminating the reply brief

or the hearing, the Court has discretion to do so. In acting on a motion under Rule 6-3, the Court

will set the briefing schedule and any hearing with a view to providing all parties a fair opportunity

to be heard while also taking into account any legitimate time pressures that may exist.

All that being said, in this instance Creative did not bring this application ex parte,

notwithstanding its title. Creative gave both advance notice of its intent to file the application and

served defendant with the application (through the ECF filing system) when it was filed. Defendant

has filed an opposition that addresses both the procedural and substantive aspects of the application.

Case 5:04-cv-03746-JF Document 325 Filed 12/27/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Under these circumstances, it would not serve judicial efficiency to require Creative to re-file

its application as two separate motions, one under Rule 6-3, and one seeking the substantive relief. 

Although, as discussed below, defendant argues that it is premature for Creative to seek the

substantive relief it requests, defendant does not appear to object to having the matter decided on an

expedited basis. Accordingly, the Court finds that no further briefing or hearing is necessary and

will proceed to the merits.

B. Substance

As noted above, the primary issue presented is whether under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure corporate officers of a party can be compelled by subpoena to travel interstate

distances greater than 100 miles to appear at trial. The parties both acknowledge the existence of

two conflicting lines of authority. One line of cases focuses on paragraph (b) (2) of Rule 45, which,

with certain exceptions not pertinent here, only authorizes subpoenas to be served “at any place

without the district that is within 100 miles of the place of the . . . trial.” See, e.g., Johnson v. Land

O’ Lakes, Inc., 181 F.R.D. 388, 396-397 (N.D. Iowa 1998). Other courts, however, have found that

paragraph (c) (3) (A) (ii) has the effect of permitting officers of a party to be subpoenaed for

appearance at trial without regard to travel distance because, again with exceptions not pertinent

here, that paragraph allows a court to quash or modify a subpoena only where it “requires a person

who is not a party or an officer of a party to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place

where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person . . . [emphasis

added].” See, e.g. In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 438 F.Supp.2d 664, 666-669 (E.D. La.,

2006) and cases cited therein.

Neither party has cited, and the Court’s research has not uncovered, any controlling

precedent. The majority view and more persuasive analysis, however, is found in Vioxx. Although

there is tension between the two portions of the rule, the better reading of the rule as a whole is to

give effect and meaning to the phrase “who is not a party or an officer of a party” in paragraph (c)

(3) (A) (ii). Following Johnson, and refusing to see that phrase as affecting the analysis, would

result in the phrase being pure surplusage, without effect under any circumstances. Such

constructions are to be avoided, when possible. See U.S. v. Reina-Rodriguez, 468 F.3d 1147, 1155

Case 5:04-cv-03746-JF Document 325 Filed 12/27/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The Johnson court concluded, “[t]here simply is no ‘negative implication,’” arising from

paragraph (c) (3) (A) (ii) that parties and officers of parties are subject to a different rule. The Court

respectfully disagrees, both in light of the words of the statute and the hoary principle that

“expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”

ORDER RE “EX PARTE” APPLICATION 

C 04-3746 JF (RS)

4

(9th Cir. 2006) (“Courts avoid ‘[i]nterpretive constructions which render some words

surplusage.’”)2

 Accordingly, the Court concludes that defendant’s officers are subject to subpoena

for appearance at trial notwithstanding where they may reside, be employed, or regularly transact

business.

That said, defendant is correct that because no subpoenas have yet been served, it would be

premature to conclude that any or all of the individuals plaintiff proposes to subpoena should in fact

be required to appear. This ruling, therefore, is without prejudice to defendant’s right to bring a

motion to quash or modify any subpoena on grounds other than geographic scope.

As alternative relief, Creative sought to impose various limitations on defendant’s rights to

modify its witness list. That request is largely moot. To the extent plaintiff may still desire such

relief in view of the fact that motions to quash or modify the subpoenas could still be filed, the relief

is denied. The possibility that plaintiff will be unable to compel the attendance of certain witnesses

at trial does not warrant imposing on defendant any obligations or restraints other than those set

forth in the presiding judge’s pre-trial orders.

III. CONCLUSION

Creative’s “ex parte” motion is granted to the extent set forth above and is otherwise denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03746-JF Document 325 Filed 12/27/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE “EX PARTE” APPLICATION 

C 04-3746 JF (RS)

5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

John P. Bovich jbovich@reedsmith.com, nctuttle@reedsmith.com

Robert T. Cruzen rcruzen@howardrice.com,

Martin R. Glick mglick@howardrice.com,

Jonah D. Mitchell jmitchell@reedsmith.com, Drothschild@reedsmith.com

William R. Overend woverend@reedsmith.com, vcanton@reedsmith.com

Frank F. Sommers , IV ffs@sommersschwartz.com, drh@sommersschwartz.com,

ahs@sommersschwartz.com

Maxim H. Waldbaum mwaldbaum@schiffhardin.com, jsanchez@schiffhardin.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 12/27/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-03746-JF Document 325 Filed 12/27/06 Page 5 of 5