Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05391/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05391-17/pdf.json

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

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed May 27, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MULTIVEN, INC., a Delaware corporation 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., a California 

corporation, 

 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________ 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

____________________________________/

No. C08-05391 JW (HRL) 

ORDER DENYING 

COUNTERDEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO SHORTEN TIME 

[Re: Docket No. 211] 

Plaintiff Multiven, Inc. (“Multiven”), a provider of service and maintenance support for 

router and networking systems, sued defendant Cisco Systems, Inc., a leading provider of Internet 

Protocol-based networking technologies, alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and 

related state claims. Cisco Systems, Inc., along with related-entity Cisco Technology, Inc. 

(collectively, “Cisco”), thereafter brought counterclaims against Multiven as well as Pingsta, Inc. 

(“Pingsta”) and Peter Alfred-Adekeye (“Mr. Adekeye”), a former Cisco employee and current Chief 

Executive Officer of Multiven and Pingsta (collectively, “Counterdefendants”). Cisco’s 

counterclaims allege copyright infringement, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, false 

advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, and related state claims. 

Pursuant to a warrant issued by this court and based upon a criminal complaint, Mr. Adekeye 

was arrested on May 20, 2010 by the Royal Mounted Canadian Police during Mr. Adekeye’s 

Case 5:08-cv-05391-JW Document 214 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

deposition in Vancouver, Canada in the above-referenced civil action. He is currently detained in a 

Canadian jail awaiting possible extradition to the United States (Mr. Adekeye is a British citizen 

currently residing in Switzerland). The warrant upon which Mr. Adekeye was arrested describes 

similar conduct to that as alleged by Cisco in its counterclaims. Counterdefendants believe that, 

given this similarity and the timing and location of the arrest, it is highly likely that Cisco or its 

agents sought the criminal charges and arrest of Mr. Adekeye at his deposition. As such, on or 

about May 25, 2010,1 Counterdefendants served on Cisco six requests for production of documents,2

all of which contained the following single, identical document request: 

Any and all communications, including but not limited to electronic mail, letter, facsimile, 

phone calls, or records reflecting any electronic mail, letter, facsimile, or phone calls 

between, on the one hand, any of YOUR3

 attorneys or outside counsel, any of YOUR 

employees or former employees, or any of YOUR agents, and, on the other hand, any U.S. 

federal, state, or foreign government agency, or any employee of any U.S. federal, state, or 

foreign governmental agency regarding any claim, defense, fact, circumstance, or allegation 

included, referenced in, or relating to the ACTION,4

 as well as a certification that all such 

documents in YOUR possession, custody, or control have been produced in response to this 

request. 

(Mot., Ex. A.) Counterdefendants claim that the information sought by the document 

requests would be crucial to Mr. Adekeye’s defense against extradition and the charges underlying 

his arrest, and would be relevant to the pending antitrust claims and additional potential claims 

against Cisco as well.5 Accordingly, Counterdefendants filed on May 25, 2010 a motion to shorten 

time requesting that the court issue an order requiring Cisco to respond to the requests within two 

days of the issuance of the order, instead of within 30 days from the date of service pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(A). Cisco opposes the motion. 

 

1

 The moving papers are in conflict regarding the date on which the document requests were served. 

Counterdefendants’ motion states that service occurred on May 25, 2010 (Mot. 2 n.1) while Cisco’s 

opposition states that the requests were served on May 24, 2010 (Opp’n. 1). 

2

 According to Counterdefendants, one request was made by each of the three counterdefendants to 

each of two counterclaimants for a total of six identical requests. (Mot. 2 n.1.) 3

 The request for production of documents defines “YOU” and “YOUR” to mean Defendant and 

Counterclaimant Cisco Systems, Inc. and any person acting on its behalf or at its direction. (Mot., 

Ex. A.) 

4

 The request for production of documents defines “ACTION” to the mean the above-referenced 

civil case. (Mot., Ex. A.) 

5

 In their motion, Counterdefendants claim that Cisco’s apparent involvement in Mr. Adekeye’s 

arrest is an effort to deny him of his Constitutional rights and to intimidate Multiven from pursuing 

its antitrust claims against Cisco. 

Case 5:08-cv-05391-JW Document 214 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

Counterdefendants correctly state that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 allows the court to 

order a shortened time for a party to respond to a document request. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(A). 

Per this district’s local rules, the court may shorten time where the moving party sets forth with 

particularity the reasons for the shortened time and identifies the substantial harm or prejudice that 

would occur without the change in time. See N.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 6-3(a).6

 In their motion, 

Counterdefendants argue that waiting the default 30 days for Cisco to respond would constitute 

substantial harm because Mr. Adekeye needs the information requested to defend against his 

extradition and the criminal charges against him. They further argue that the information sought is 

relevant to the pending civil case and additional potential claims against Cisco. 

The problem, however, is that any communications between Cisco and any government 

agencies about the civil action would be irrelevant to Mr. Adekeye’s extradition proceedings in 

Canada. During Canadian extradition proceedings, “a Canadian extradition judge determines 

whether the conduct in the foreign state would constitute an offense in Canada if it had occurred in 

Canada and if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the fugitive.” United States v. Asiegbu, No. 

CR 02-00673 MMM, 2009 WL 413132, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2009) (internal quotations 

omitted). If so, “the Canadian Minister of Justice must make a decision whether the defendant 

should be surrendered to the requesting state in accordance with the relevant extradition treaty.” Id. 

Given the specific and limited scope of the Canadian extradition inquiry, documents 

reflecting communications between Cisco and any government agencies concerning the civil action 

would not be relevant to Mr. Adekeye’s extradition proceeding. As such, he would not suffer the 

requisite substantial harm or prejudice required by Local Rule 6-3(a) to shorten time. Accordingly, 

Counterdefendants’ motion to shorten time is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 27, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

6

 Among other requirements, Local Rule 6-3(a) further instructs that the moving party describe any 

efforts made to obtain a stipulation to the time change. Counterdefendants’ attorney, however, 

states in his supporting declaration that Counterdefendants have not sought such a stipulation 

“because the circumstances demonstrate that such an attempt would be futile.” (Decl. of Thomas M. 

O’Leary 3.) 

Case 5:08-cv-05391-JW Document 214 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 4
4 

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

For the Northern District of California 

C08-05391 JW (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Brian Curtis Vanderhoof bvanderhoof@rmkb.com, aarriola@rmkb.com, jcecchini@rmkb.com, 

kkakiuchi@rmkb.com 

Dan Keith Webb dwebb@winston.com 

Donald Ross Pepperman dpepperman@blechercollins.com, ljaramillo@blechercollins.com 

James C. Potepan jpotepan@ropers.com, aarriola@ropers.com, kkakiuchi@ropers.com, 

tpierson@ropers.com 

Joseph J. Bial joseph.bial@cwt.com 

Maxwell Michael Blecher mblecher@blechercollins.com 

Michael Sungwoo Kim mkim@rmkb.com, jcecchini@rmkb.com, kkakiuchi@rmkb.com 

Patrick Martin Ryan pryan@winston.com, DocketSF@winston.com, 

mthomasian@winston.com, ndelich@winston.com, 

tmontague@winston.com 

Thomas Michael O'Leary toleary@rmkb.com, aarriola@rmkb.com, jcecchini@rmkb.com, 

kkakiuchi@ropers.com 

Notice will be sent by other means to: 

Charles F. Rule 

Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP 

700 Sixth Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20001 

James Robert Noblin 

Blecher & Collins, P.C. 

515 South Figueroa Street 

Suite 1750 

Los Angeles, CA 90017-3334 

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-05391-JW Document 214 Filed 05/27/10 Page 4 of 4