Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07028/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07028-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOTSAM OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

HUNTINGTON BEACH CONFERENCE AND

VISITORS BUREAU,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 06-7028 MMC (MEJ)

ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENA

DUCES TECUM

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint discovery dispute letter, filed November 21, 2007. 

(Doc. #65.) The letter concerns a dispute over a subpoena duces tecum served by Defendant

Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau, Inc. ("Defendant") for documents relating to

press conferences, press releases, and other extrajudicial activities concerning this litigation which

Defendant claims Plaintiff Flotsam of California, Inc. ("Plaintiff") and third parties, including its

counsel, have orchestrated. Defendant served the subpoena on Plaintiff's litigation counsel. 

Discovery from opposing litigation counsel has been recognized as permissible under limited

circumstances. The burden is on the party seeking the discovery to demonstrate its propriety and

need. Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986). Under Shelton,

discovery of opposing trial counsel is appropriate when: "(1) no other means exist to obtain the

information; (2) the information sought is relevant and nonprivileged; and (3) the information is

Case 3:06-cv-07028-MMC Document 69 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 2
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

crucial to the preparation of the case." Id. at 1327. Under this standard, the Court finds the

requested discovery inappropriate. 

First, Defendant has not demonstrated that no other means exist to obtain the discovery, nor

has it demonstrated its own efforts to obtain the information from other sources, such as the potential

to receive documents from third-party news agencies. Second, Defendant's request appears overly

broad and seeks documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the work

product doctrine. Third, given the presumption against testimony by an opposing party's attorneywitness, see, e.g., Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 513 (1947), Defendant has not demonstrated

that the requested information is crucial to the case. Defendant draws the Court's attention to the

fact that Plaintiff's attorneys held at least one press conference to announce the lawsuit before it was

served, yet Defendant waited until the close of discovery to seek this information. Given the timing

of Defendant's request, it is not clear how it is crucial to the preparation of its case. 

Accordingly, the Court QUASHES Defendant's subpoena. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 26, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07028-MMC Document 69 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 2