Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836-38/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

NSIGHT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

PEOPLESOFT, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. 3:04 CV 3836 MMC (MEJ)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

REQUEST TO REQUIRE APPEARANCE

AT DEPOSITION WITHOUT SERVICE

OF SUBPOENA

Before the Court is plaintiff nSight, Inc.'s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed August 9,

2006, 2006. (Doc. #170.) In its motion, nSight's counsel, Naren Chaganti, argues that David

Duffield, former chairman of PeopleSoft, rejected service of a subpoena to appear for deposition on

August 21, 2006. Mr. Chaganti states that the gated community in which Mr. Duffield resides

would not permit a private process server to enter the premises and, when he entered the gated

community and attempted personal service by himself, armed guards escorted him off the property. 

nSight seeks an order compelling Mr. Duffield's appearance or, in the alternative, permitting

depositions of other witnesses.

Upon review of nSight's motion, the Court finds that good cause does not exist to grant its

request. nSight provides no evidence, such as a declaration from the process server that service

cannot be completed, and fails to show that all available means of service are ineffective. Further,

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 179 Filed 08/14/06 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

nSight fails to show that Mr. Duffield rejected service. Based on defendant Oracle USA, Inc.'s

opposition, it is not even clear that Mr. Duffield was in California at the time nSight attempted

service. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES nSight's motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 179 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 2