Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00273/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00273-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE APPLICATION OF HIGH

POINT S.A.R.L.,

Applicant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C10-0273 SBA (BZ)

ORDER QUASHING HUAWEI 

SUBPOENA

I find no need for a hearing. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

Huawei’s Motion to Quash Subpoena is GRANTED for the following

reasons:

1. The burden of establishing that Huawei is subject to

discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 is on High Point. See In re

Application of Nokia Corp, 2007 W.L. 1729664, (W.D.MI 2007). 

Based on the smattering of information High Point has gleaned

from the internet, such as the fact that Huawei identifies

itself as having a subsidiary or location in California or the

fact that there are links between Huawei’s and FutureWei’s

Case 3:10-cv-00273-JL Document 46 Filed 04/08/10 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

2

websites, for such purposes as job applications, High Point

has not met its burden. On this record, I find that Huawei

does not reside in and is not found in this district, as

required by 28 U.S.C. §1782. 

2. The subpoena is for a 30b(6) deposition of Huawei to

be taken in this district. Even if a foreign corporation is

found subject to this Court’s long arm jurisdiction, that does

not mean that the corporation can be compelled to sit for a

deposition in this district or produce documents in this

district. See In re Godfrey, 526 F. Supp. 2d 417, 422-23

(S.D.N.Y. 2007) (Moscow executive could not be compelled to

travel for deposition or “produce documents located outside of

the United States”), Norex Petroleum v. Chubb Ins. Co., 384 F.

Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2005) (non-party could not be compelled to

produce foreign parent company’s documents located outside of

United States). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A) (nonparty witness may not be required to travel more than 100

miles). 

3. This Court has “broad discretion to determine

whether, and to what extent, to honor a request for assistance

under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.” Four Pillars Enterprises v. Avery

Dennison Corporation, 308 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 2002).

4. Serious questions exist whether § 1782 reaches

evidence located outside the United States. Four Pillars,

supra, at 1079-1080.

For all these reasons, in the exercise of my discretion, 

///

///

Case 3:10-cv-00273-JL Document 46 Filed 04/08/10 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

3

Huawei’s motion to quash is GRANTED and the subpoena is

QUASHED. 

Dated: April 8, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\IN RE HIGH POINT S.A.R.L\ORD QUASHING HUAWEI SUBPOENA.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-00273-JL Document 46 Filed 04/08/10 Page 3 of 3