Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00024/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00024-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

 The Court notes that Defendants previously raised issues about the confidentiality of the

documents produced pursuant to these subpoenas, a matter that was addressed in the Court’s November

2, 2006 Order. [Doc. No. 102.] Defendants did not assert confidentiality or privilege objections as the

basis of this Motion to Quash.

1 04cv0024

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHOTOMEDEX, INC., Civil No. 04cv0024-L (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO QUASH RECORD

SUBPOENAS SERVED ON THIRD

PARTIES

[Doc. No. 106]

v.

DEAN STEWART IRWIN; RA MEDICAL

SYSTEMS, INC.; and DOES 1-25, inclusive,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Quash Record Subpoenas served on third parties Dr.

Pearl Grimes and Dr. Rudolph Ross, submitted November 15, 2006. [Doc. No. 106.] Plaintiff

submitted its opposition on November 30, 2006. [Doc. No. 110.] Defendants submitted a reply on

December 7, 2006. [Doc. No. 114.] The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the

papers submitted and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

Defendants objected to the subpoenas listing the following grounds: overly broad; unduly

burdensome; oppressive; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and

not relevant to the subject matter of the action.1 The subpoenaed individuals made no objection. Dr.

Grimes responded to the subpoenas with the production of responsive documents. Dr. Ross responded

with a verification that he had no responsive documents. Apparently, neither subpoenaed party had

Case 3:04-cv-00024-JLS-CAB Document 116 Filed 01/16/07 Page 1 of 2
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 04cv0024

difficulty responding to the breadth or scope of the requests, and Plaintiff is not challenging the

responses. Defendants’ objections are therefore moot and the motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 16, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00024-JLS-CAB Document 116 Filed 01/16/07 Page 2 of 2