Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06520/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06520-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

RITA C HO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK PINSUKANJANA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06520-PJH (TSH)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO 

QUASH AND FOR A PROTECTIVE 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 68, 69, 72

Defendants filed a motion to quash and a motion for a protective order seeking to limit 

Plaintiff’s December 7, 2018 document subpoena to the Robert Tat Gallery. ECF Nos. 68 (motion 

to quash), 69 (motion for protective order), 69-1 Ex. A (subpoena). The Court ordered the parties 

to meet and confer, and if they could not resolve their dispute, to submit a joint letter brief. ECF 

No. 70. On January 17, 2019, the parties filed a joint letter brief. ECF No. 72. The Court had a 

telephonic hearing on the matter on January 23, 2019, and now issues this order.

In the letter brief, Defendants argued that the subpoena invades third party privacy rights 

and seeks commercially sensitive information, attorney-client privileged communications, client 

lists, tax returns, and so on. However, none of the five requests for production can fairly be read 

that broadly. The five requests are all about the gallery’s purchase of Fan Ho prints from the 

Defendants, or the resale of those prints by the gallery back to the Defendants. To be sure, that 

includes associated documents such as invoices and emails about the sales, but the requests for 

production are simply not as broad as Defendants argued.

At the telephonic hearing, Defendants clarified their objections to the subpoena. First, they 

seem to concede that sales by them to or through the gallery are relevant, but they contend that 

resales by the gallery back to the Defendants are irrelevant. Second, they argue that the time 

period covered by the requests (2000 to present) is overbroad. Plaintiff responds to the first point 

by contending that resales back to the Defendants are necessary to understand the full picture of 

the transactions at issue. As to the time period, Plaintiff argues there was an oral agreement

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 78 Filed 01/24/19 Page 1 of 3
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

between the parties (whose terms are disputed) prior to the 2012 written contract referred to in the 

complaint, and Plaintiff also asserts Defendants concealed their wrongdoing and that this tolled

the applicable statutes of limitations.

On the first issue, the Court agrees with the Defendants. The complaint alleges that the 

decedent, Fan Ho, provided Defendants with thousands of photographic images and that 

Defendants sold unauthorized copies of prints made from those images and kept all the proceeds 

from those sales despite their obligation to pay commissions. Compl., ECF No. 7, ¶¶ 22, 42, 43, 

46, 49. Thus, sales by the Defendants of Fan Ho prints to or through the gallery are plainly 

relevant since those transactions are part of the alleged misconduct and form part of Plaintiff’s 

damages. But the alleged misconduct does not include the acquisition of Fan Ho prints from other 

sources. Plaintiff argues these resales are necessary to understand if the original sales were truly 

sales and that they are also relevant to the extent that Defendants may try to sell a particular work 

for a second time. But the requests for documents about the original sales necessarily include 

documents about whether they were real sales and what the terms truly were. And if Defendants 

bought back some Fan Ho prints from the gallery and then sold them to someone else, those 

further sales are not within the scope of this subpoena anyway. The repurchase of the prints by the 

Defendants is not by itself relevant. 

On the second issue, the time period of the subpoena is overbroad. Discovery into each 

sale of a Fan Ho print to or through the gallery is principally an issue of damages. However, the 

Court will not limit the relevant time period to the longest statute of limitations before the date the 

complaint was filed because the statute of limitations for at least some of Plaintiff’s claims starts 

running upon discovery of the wrongdoing, see Roley v. New World Pictures, Ltd., 19 F.3d 479, 

481 (9th Cir. 1994) (copyright infringement), and there is no information before the Court about 

when Plaintiff learned of the sales to or through the gallery.

Nonetheless, the time period of 2000 to the present for requests for production 1, 2, 3 and 

5, and the unlimited time period for request for production 4 are unreasonable. The complaint 

alleges dealings between the decedent and Defendants starting with a written agreement in 2012. 

Compl. ¶ 41. It also alleges an oral agreement in 2014 to inventory the images in Defendants’ 

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 78 Filed 01/24/19 Page 2 of 3
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

Northern District of California

possession and work out a plan for delinquent payments owed under the 2012 written agreement. 

Id. ¶ 45. The complaint alleges that wrongdoing began to occur by at least November 2013, again 

referencing the failure to pay sums owed under the 2012 written agreement. Id. ¶ 44. But there is 

no reference to an oral agreement between Fan Ho and the Defendants prior to 2012, and breach of 

such an agreement does not form a part of any of Plaintiff’s claims as pleaded. Based on the 

allegations in the complaint, there is no justification for the subpoena to reach back earlier than 

2012. 

To be clear, both sides agree that there was an oral agreement prior to the 2012 written 

agreement. Defendants allege it was entered into in or around 2000. Counterclaims, ECF No. 24, 

¶ 27. But in their telling, the dealings between them and the decedent all went fine under the oral 

agreement, and it was the attempt to reduce it to writing in 2012 that led to the later breakdown in 

the business relationship. Id. ¶¶ 36-48. Thus, Defendants’ counterclaims do not make this 

discovery relevant, and as noted, Plaintiff’s claims as alleged also are not based on the earlier oral 

agreement. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendants’ motions to quash and for a protective 

order are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

1. Request for production No. 1 is limited to purchases from 2012 to the present.

2. Request for production No. 2 is quashed in its entirety.

3. Request for production No. 3 is limited to purchases from 2012 to the present and 

excludes resales by the gallery.

4. Request for production No. 4 is limited to 2012 to the present and excludes resales by 

the gallery.

5. Request for production No. 5 is limited to purchases from 2012 to the present and 

excludes resales by the gallery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-06520-PJH Document 78 Filed 01/24/19 Page 3 of 3