Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02863/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02863-57/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS

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

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES FIBER IP 

(SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

IPTRONICS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

COSTS

(Re: Docket No. 782)

Last August, the court allowed Plaintiffs Avago Technologies, Inc. et al. to take

depositions and secure document production from third parties it had not already deposed, on the 

condition that Avago bear the burden of fees and costs associated with those depositions and 

document production.

1

 Non-party Sumitomo Electric Device Innovations U.S.A., Inc., which 

Avago did not depose, moves to compel payment of its fees and costs associated with preparing 

for a deposition that never happened and document production that did.2 SEDU’s motion is 

DENIED.

Between December 2014 and May 2015, Avago served three deposition and document 

production subpoenas on SEDU.3 As an initial matter, SEDU responded with general objections, 

one of which stated:

Any and all costs relating to the Subpoena should be borne completely and in 

 

1

See Docket No. 703 at 2.

2

See Docket No. 782.

3

See id. at 1.

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 821 Filed 12/17/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS

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

advance by the party issuing the Subpoena, and SEDU objects to producing any 

materials sought by the Subpoena in the absence of Avago’s prior written 

commitment to pay for all reasonable costs of production.4

While meeting and conferring on May 29, 2015, Avago explicitly rejected the request that Avago 

pay these discovery costs5and never gave SEDU a written commitment that it would.6 

Nevertheless, from February to June, Avago and SEDU met, conferred and narrowed the scope of 

the subpoenas.7 They were able to reach a tentative agreement on the scope of document 

production,8and notwithstanding Avago’s refusal to pay costs, SEDU produced approximately 

47,000 documents from June 12, 2015 to July 24, 2015.9

Talks about the deposition subpoenas were less successful, and on July 29, 2015, Avago 

moved to compel the deposition of SEDU.10 Meanwhile, SEDU prepared to respond to the 

subpoena.

11

In August, the court ruled on a number of discovery motions together and denied Avago’s 

motion to compel deposition as to SEDU but granted Avago’s motions to compel against other 

entities.12 The court established “ground rules” for the depositions and discovery that it 

authorized: first, Avago could “only take deposition of third parties it [had] not previously 

 

4

See Docket No. 978 at 3.

5

See Docket No. 798-1 at ¶ 2.

6

See Docket No. 798 at 3.

7

See id. at 2.

8

See Docket No. 782 at 3.

9

See id.

10 See Docket No. 653.

11 See Docket No. 782 at 3.

12 See Docket No. 703 (denying depositions of parties previously deposed); Docket No. 723 

(explicitly denying Avago’s motion to compel SEDU’s deposition).

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 821 Filed 12/17/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS

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

deposed,”

13 and second, “Avago shall pay for any fees and costs associated with document 

production and depositions.”14 Avago had previously deposed SEDU in an ITC proceeding,15 and 

so the court’s order prevented Avago from re-deposing SEDU. Nonetheless, SEDU moves under 

the court’s prior order16 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) to request a minimum of $426,694.63 

in fees and costs incurred in responding to Avago’s document production subpoenas and in 

preparing for a deposition that never occurred.

17

The court’s prior order plainly does not authorize SEDU to recover its discovery fees and 

costs. The order allowed Avago to depose third parties it had not previously deposed—which 

excluded SEDU—and then, to reduce the burden that imposed on those third parties, required 

Avago to pay fees and costs associated with those depositions and document production. The 

order did not allow every third party ever involved in this litigation to recover its discovery fees 

and costs, which is what SEDU’s interpretation of the order would require. The court denied 

Avago’s motion to compel a deposition of SEDU, and because SEDU was not deposed, it cannot 

recover its fees and costs incurred in preparing for and opposing the deposition.

SEDU also cannot recover its fees and costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(ii). This 

rule states that when a court compels production or inspection, the court’s order “must protect a 

person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from significant expense resulting from 

compliance.” If the court does not issue an order compelling production or inspection, “costs may 

be shifted under Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) if the requesting party is on notice that the non-party will 

seek reimbursement of costs.”

18

 

 

13 Docket No. 703 at 2.

14 Id.

15 See Docket No. 798 at 7.

16 See Docket No. 703 at 2.

17 See Docket No. 782 at 1.

18 Spears v. First Am. Eappraiseit, Case No. 5-08-CV-00868-RMW, 2014 WL 6901808, at *3 

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 821 Filed 12/17/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COSTS

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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) does not provide SEDU any relief. The court did not order 

SEDU’s compliance with the deposition or document production subpoenas. In fact, SEDU’s 

document production occurred without a court order. In order for SEDU to recover its fees under 

this rule, then, Avago would have to have been on notice that SEDU would seek reimbursement of 

costs. SEDU argues that it put Avago on notice first with its general objection19 and then again 

during the May 29, 2015 meet and confer.20 However, despite SEDU’s general objection “to 

producing any materials . . . in the absence of Avago’s prior written commitment to pay for all 

reasonable costs of production,”

21 Avago’s lack of a written commitment22 and Avago’s explicit 

refusal to pay for costs,23 SEDU produced documents.24 SEDU’s decision to proceed with 

production even in the face of Avago’s refusal to pay for costs, and in contradiction of its stated 

objection, did not put Avago on notice that SEDU would seek reimbursement of costs.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014).

19 See Docket No. 798 at 3.

20 See Docket No. 782 at 2.

21 See Docket No. 798 at 3.

22 See id.

23 See Docket No. 798-1 at ¶ 2.

24 See Docket No. 782 at 3.

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 821 Filed 12/17/15 Page 4 of 4