Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05590/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05590-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent 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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MEDIMMUNE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PDL BIOPHARMA, INC.

Defendant. /

No. C08-05590 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF

SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1783

[Re: Docket No. 493]

Pursuant to the Walsh Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1783, plaintiff MedImmune LLC

(“MedImmune”) moves for issuance of a subpoena for the deposition of Mark McDade. 

McDade served as the Chief Executive Officer of defendant PDL Biopharma, Inc. (“PDL”)

from 2002-2007. He currently lives and works in Belgium. PDL opposes the motion. 

MedImmune says that it sent copies of its motion papers to McDade. He has not filed any

response. Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well as the arguments of

counsel, this court grants the motion.

Under the Walsh Act, the court “may order the issuance of a subpoena requiring the

appearance as a witness before it . . . a national or resident of the United States who is in a

foreign country” where the testimony sought “is necessary in the interest of justice” and “it is

not possible to obtain his testimony in admissible form without his personal appearance.”

28 U.S.C. § 1783(a); Securities & Exch. Comm’n v. Sabhlok, No. C08-04238CRB (JL),

*E-FILED 05-27-2010*

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 528 Filed 05/27/10 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 http:// www.travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial_666.html

2

2009 WL 3561523 *3 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 30, 2009). “The decision to issue a subpoena under this

statute is left to the sound discretion of the court.” Klesch & Co. Ltd. v. Liberty Media Corp.,

217 F.R.D. 517, 523 (D. Col. 2003).

The parties stipulate that McDade was a United States citizen as of 2007 when he left

his employment at PDL. PDL contends that MedImmune has not disproved the possibility that

McDade might have renounced his citizenship since then. But there is nothing in the record to

support a conclusion that McDade is no longer a United States citizen. Accordingly, the court

finds that he is within the reach of the statute.

MedImmune has satisfied the first prong of the statute. “Testimony is ‘necessary in the

interest of justice’ if it is relevant under the liberal standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(b).” Sabhlok, 2009 WL 3561523 at *3; see also Securities & Exch. Comm’n v.

Sandifur, No. C05-1631, 2006 WL 3692611 *3 (W.D. Wa., Dec. 11, 2006) (“[T]he ‘interests of

justice’ element in discovery disputes only requires a compelling showing that the material

sought would meet the relatively liberal standards set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26

for discoverable material.”). Here, PDL does not dispute that the testimony sought is relevant

to its amended counterclaims. This court finds that it is of no moment that the requested

testimony also happens to bear on issues that have been in the case from the start.

MedImmune has also demonstrated that it is not possible to obtain McDade’s testimony

in admissible form without his personal appearance. 28 U.S.C. § 1783(a). Under this prong of

the statute, “[s]ubpoenas may be issued when it is ‘impractical’ to obtain the information. Sheer

impossibility is not required.” Sandifur, 2006 WL 3692611 at *4 (citing CSI Inv. Partners II,

L.P. v. Cendant Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11014 at *14 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)). “Impracticality

occurs, for example, where resort to alternative methods is unlikely to produce the relevant

evidence in time to meet impending discovery deadlines.” Id. The U.S. State Department’s

website1

 advises that Belgium is not a signatory to the Hague Evidence Convention — the

upshot being that an American-style deposition cannot proceed in Belgium, unless the witness

appears voluntarily. Here, both parties have attempted to obtain informal discovery from

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 528 Filed 05/27/10 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

McDade. He refused and reportedly will not provide any testimony unless compelled to do so

through formal processes. And, while PDL asserts that Belgium accepts requests for rogatory

commissions under the Hague Convention on Judicial Assistance, the State Department

suggests that the letter rogatory process can take anywhere from six months to one year. Fact

discovery as to PDL’s amended counterclaims closes on July 20, 2010. Resort to the letter

rogatory process therefore is unlikely to produce relevant evidence in time under existing case

deadlines.

As for the location of the deposition, having the examination proceed in Belgium would

undoubtedly be most convenient for McDade. But because McDade is refusing to appear

voluntarily, it is doubtful whether this court has the authority to compel him to sit for a

deposition in Belgium. Moreover, the court would have no jurisdiction over the proceedings if

the deposition took place there. See Sabhlok, 2009 WL 3561523 at *6 (“Where, as here, the

subpoena is sought under the Court’s authority to compel the testimony of a United States

citizen, there is simply no basis in law for permitting the testimony to occur in [another

country]. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the process, and the Court’s lack of jurisdiction also

renders the event something other than what it purports to be.”). On balance, after weighing

competing legitimate interests and possible prejudice, the court finds that it will be less costly

and disruptive to have the deposition proceed in Washington, D.C., at plaintiff’s counsel’s

offices, than to have one or more attorneys for each party travel to Belgium, or to have McDade

and plaintiff’s counsel travel to California.

Accordingly, MedImmune’s motion for issuance of a subpoena pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1783 is granted. The court will also grant MedImmune’s request that service be effected via

Federal Express pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f) and Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention on

the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters

(“Hague Service Convention”). See generally R. Griggs Group Ltd. v. Filanto SPA, 920 F.

Supp. 1100 (D. Nev. 1996); Power Integrations, Inc. v. System Gen’l Corp., Case No. C04-

02581JSW, 2004 WL 2806168 at *2 n.3 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2004). Belgium is a signatory to

the Hague Service Convention and does not oppose service under Article 10(a). McDade’s

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 528 Filed 05/27/10 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 PDL is agreeable to the June 9, 2010 date. At oral argument, MedImmune

agreed that if the June 9, 2010 does not work for McDade, MedImmune will, within reason

under the existing discovery schedule, work with him and with PDL to select another date

for the deposition.

4

deposition shall take place at plaintiff’s counsel’s offices in Washington, D.C. on June 9, 2010.2

MedImmune shall tender with the subpoena the sum of $12,000, which plaintiff estimates

should be sufficient to cover McDade’s business-class travel, his accommodations in

Washington, D.C. and his witness fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1783(b).

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

May 27, 2010

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 528 Filed 05/27/10 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

5

5:08-cv-05590-JF Notice electronically mailed to: 

Aaron P. Maurer amaurer@wc.com

Aaron Y Huang aaron.huang@weil.com

Dana K Powers dana.powers@weil.com

David Isaac Berl dberl@wc.com

David Isaac Gindler DGindler@Irell.com, dlieberman@irell.com

Gerson Avery Zweifach gzweifach@wc.com

Gregory Hull greg.hull@weil.com, rebecca.kraus@weil.com

Jeffrey E. Faucette jfaucette@tcolaw.com, cdunbar@tcolaw.com, cwoodrich@tcolaw.com,

mcianfrani@tcolaw.com

Jessamyn Sheli Berniker jberniker@wc.com

Paul B. Gaffney pgaffney@wc.com

Raymond Angelo LaMagna rlamagna@irell.com

Vernon Michael Winters vern.winters@weil.com, nettie.asiasi@weil.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.

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 528 Filed 05/27/10 Page 5 of 5