Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05432/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05432-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERIFONE SYSTEMS, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

GILARDI & CO. LLC, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 15-cv-05432-JCS 

ORDER REGARDING RESPONSE TO 

EX PARTE APPLICATION

Re: Dkt. No. 6

On December 2, 2015, the Court granted an ex parte application by VeriFone Systems, Inc. 

(“VeriFone”) seeking issuance of a subpoena pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for the production of 

documents by Respondent Gilardi & Co. LLC (“Gilardi”) for use in Israeli litigation. On 

December 3, 2015, Gilardi filed a “Response” to the application.

It is not clear whether Gilardi’s Response seeks any particular action by the Court. Gilardi 

asserts that the application fails to adequately acknowledge certain documents and information 

that Gilardi has informally provided to VeriFone, but provides no authority or argument why such 

cooperation precludes granting a § 1782 application. 

Gilardi also asserts that “it appears that VeriFone should have filed its ex parte application 

before the Honorable Edward M. Chen,” who presided over a related class action in the United 

States and retained jurisdiction over implementation, distribution, disposition, construction, 

enforcement, and administration of the settlement in that case. See Response (dkt. 6) at 2. It is not 

clear that the request at issue here—for discovery related to that settlement, for use in a separate 

case in Israeli court—falls within Judge Chen’s retention of jurisdiction. Even if it does, Gilardi 

has not presented any argument or authority that the undersigned magistrate judge lacks

jurisdiction over the application.

To the extent that Gilardi’s Response could be construed as a request for the Court to 

Case 3:15-cv-05432-JCS Document 7 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Northern District of California

reconsider its order granting VeriFone’s application, the request is DENIED. This Order is 

without prejudice to any objections Gilardi may have to the subpoena under the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure or other relevant authority. Any further disputes regarding the subpoena should 

be addressed in a manner consistent with the Court’s Standing Order on Discovery Disputes, 

attached as an exhibit to this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05432-JCS Document 7 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 2