Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-mc-00052/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-mc-00052-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ECHOSTAR SATELLITE L.L.C., et al,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VIEWTECH, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-mc-00052-SMS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL SONNY DLAHIWAL d/b/a

TRANSWORLD FTA TO PRODUCE

DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA

(Doc. 4)

Plaintiff DISH Network moves to compel nonparty Sonny Dlahiwal d/b/a Transworld

FTA to produce documents in response to a subpoena. Dlahiwal has not responded to the

subpoena in any way. This Court has reviewed the papers and has determined that this matter is

suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h). Having

considered all written materials submitted and applicable law, the Court orders that Plaintiff’s

motion is denied.

I. Background

 Plaintiff DISH Network broadcasts copyrighted pay-television broadcasting to more than

15 million subscribers in the United States. It sued defendants Viewtech and John Kwak, who

produce and market “Viewsat” receivers for use in pirating DISH Network’s broadcasts. In the

course of discovery, DISH Network served Viewtech’s dealers, which are not parties to the

lawsuit, with subpoenas pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 45, seeking documents and information relevant

to the ongoing litigation. 

Dealer Sonny Dlahiwal d/b/a Transworld FTA, which operates in Bakersfield, California,

was personally served with a subpoena on June 12, 2009. Dlahiwal has not objected to the

1

Case 1:09-mc-00052-SMS Document 12 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 3
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

subpoena nor responded in any other way despite Plaintiff’s multiple attempts to meet and confer

with him to secure the requested documents and information. Accordingly, on December 22,

2009, Plaintiff moved to compel Dlahiwal to respond to the subpoena.

II. Discussion

Rule 45 permits the use of a subpoena to command a nonparty recipient to produce

specified books, documents, electronically stored information, or other tangible things in the

recipient’s possession, custody and control. F.R.Civ.P. 45 (a)(1)(A)(iii). After the proponent has

served the subpoena, the recipient may elect to comply with the subpoena, or may move to quash

based on undue cost or burden, object to the subpoena’s form, or challenge the subpoena,

according to procedures set forth in Rule 45. If the recipient fails or refuses to respond to the

subpoena, the proponent may first try to negotiate compliance, as by offering to meet and confer,

but ultimately, it the recipient fails to comply without adequate excuse, the recipient is in

contempt of court, and the proponent must file an application for an order to show cause why a

contempt citation should not issue. See Alcade v. NAC Real Estate Investments & Assignments,

Inc., 580 F.Supp.2d 969, 971 (C.D.Cal. 2008).

Plaintiff has not applied for an order to show cause. Instead, it has brought a motion to

compel, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 37, which provides for enforcement of discovery requests, not

subpoenas. 

Even if Plaintiff had properly brought its motion under Rule 45 (e), however, this Court

could not have held Dlahiwal in contempt. Rule 45(e) provides that a “nonparty’s failure to obey

a subpoena must be excused if the subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce

at a place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii) provides that a court

must quash or modify a subpoena that “requires a person who is neither a party nor a party’s

officer to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly

transacts business in person.” Plaintiff’s subpoena to Dlahiwal required him to appear in

Sacramento, California, or to mail the requested documents and information to Houston, Texas. 

Because both locations are more than 100 miles from Bakersfield, this Court could not have held

Dlahiwal in contempt.

2

Case 1:09-mc-00052-SMS Document 12 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 3
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

IV. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing, this Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to

compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-mc-00052-SMS Document 12 Filed 02/22/10 Page 3 of 3