Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00273/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00273-3/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 DENYING FUTUREWEI’S

MOTION TO QUASH

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that FurtureWei’s Motion to Quash

High point’s subpoena is DENIED. The Court finds no need for

argument. 

To the extent the subpoena is ambiguous, the Court

accepts High Point’s limitation that it seeks “discovery only

relating to those core network products Huawei supplied to

KPN, which form the basis of KPN’s non-infringement defense.” 

Opposition page 5, Line 8-9. Inasmuch as FurtureWei is not a

party to that litigation, High Point shall identify the

products which form the basis of KPN’s non-infringement

defense. 

Case 3:10-cv-00273-JL Document 45 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 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

2

FutureWei need not produce any documents which are only

in the possession of Huawei in China, unless it has custody or

control over those documents. Ordinarily, a party seeking to

compel a subsidiary to produce the documents of a foreign

parent has the burden of showing that the documents are within

the subsidiary’s control, which generally means that the

subsidiary has the legal right to obtain the documents upon

demand. See Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 262 F.R.D. 136, 141,

(E.D.N.Y. 2009). High Point has not met its burden of showing

that FutureWei has control over Huawei documents that are

located in China. But if FutureWei has that right, it shall

produce the documents. 

To the extent that the documents sought from FutureWei

contain confidential or proprietary information, they shall be

produced pursuant to paragraph 4 of Judge Armstrong’s Order

dated March 3, 2010.

It is further ORDERED that High Point shall identify the

relevant products by April 9, 2010 and FurtureWei shall

respond to the subpoena by April 23, 2010.

Dated: April 7, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\IN RE HIGH POINT S.A.R.L\ORD DENY FUTURWEI'S MOT TO QUASH.FINAL VERSION.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-00273-JL Document 45 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 2