Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-mc-80144/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-mc-80144-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE SUBPOENA ISSUED TO CISCO

SYSTEMS, INC.

 /

No. C10-80144MISC JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART SYNQOR, INC’S

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

WITH SUBPOENA

[Re: Docket No. 1]

SynQor, Inc. (SynQor) is the plaintiff in a patent infringement lawsuit currently pending

against several defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 

Briefly stated, the patents-in-suit concern certain power conversion systems known as

unregulated and semi-regulated intermediate bus architectures (IBAs). SynQor alleges that

defendants contributorily infringe and induce infringement of its patents by, among other

things, selling electronic bus converter products to end-product manufacturers, such as nonparty Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”).

Now before the court in this ancillary proceeding is SynQor’s motion to compel Cisco’s

compliance with a subpoena seeking the production of documents and a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)

deposition. There is no dispute as to the requested deposition, which has been set for August 19

and 20, 2010. However, SynQor and Cisco disagree as to the propriety and scope of several of

SynQor’s document requests. Cisco opposes the motion. At the motion hearing, the parties

*E-FILED 08-09-2010*

Case 5:10-mc-80144-JW Document 19 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

were encouraged to further meet-and-confer as to the issues presented; and, assuming any

agreements were reached, the parties were directed to submit a letter to the court, within a

couple of days of the hearing, saying so. Not having heard anything from the parties, this court

will proceed to rule on the matter. Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, as

well as the arguments of counsel, this court grants the motion in part and denies it in part.

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the issuance of a subpoena

commanding a non-party to attend and testify; produce designated documents, electronically

stored information, or tangible things in that non-party’s possession, custody or control; or

permit the inspection of premises. FED.R.CIV.P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). The scope of discovery

through a Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoena is the same as that applicable to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and

the other discovery rules. FED.R.CIV.P. 45 advisory committee’s note (1970).

Parties may obtain discovery about any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

party’s claim or defense. FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(1). “Relevance under Rule 26(b)(1) is construed

more broadly for discovery than for trial.” Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng’g, Inc., 813

F.2d 1207, 1211 (Fed.Cir.1987). “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 

FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(1). “‘A district court whose only connection with a case is supervision of

discovery ancillary to an action in another district should be especially hesitant to pass

judgment on what constitutes relevant evidence thereunder. Where relevance is in doubt . . . the

court should be permissive.’” Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 681 (N.D. Cal., 2006)

(quoting Truswal Sys. Corp., 813 F.2d at1211-1212). Discovery is not unfettered, however. A

court must limit the extent or frequency of discovery if it finds that (a) the discovery sought is

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from a source that is more

convenient, less burdensome or less expensive, (b) the party seeking discovery has had ample

opportunity to obtain the information through discovery; or (c) the burden or expense of the

discovery sought outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in

controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake, and the importance of

the discovery in resolving those issues. FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii).

Case 5:10-mc-80144-JW Document 19 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

A. Cisco’s IBA Products (Requests 1-3)

These requests seek documents sufficient to identify each of Cisco’s IBA products, as

well as documents sufficient to show the basic technical characteristics of those products and

where and by whom the products are made. According to SynQor, Cisco produced some, but

not all, responsive documents. Cisco agreed to produce “all remaining materials” in advance of

the scheduled Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition; and, at oral argument, Cisco confirmed that it

produced all such documents prior to the hearing. SynQor maintains that certain information is

still missing—namely, documents sufficient to identify semi-regulated bus converters. 

SynQor’s June 9, 2010 letter indicates that such documents were among those sought by

SynQor. (DeZern Decl., Ex. P). SynQor says that it bent over backwards to provide Cisco with

information to aid the search for responsive documents. Cisco claims that the information

provided by SynQor was singularly uninformative. Cisco represented to the court that it has,

after diligent inquiry and reasonable search, produced all documents sought by these requests,

as clarified by SynQor’s June 9, 2010 letter, to the extent they exist. Based on Cisco’s

representation, it would appear that there is nothing more to be compelled. Nevertheless, there

is a substantial disconnect here between what Cisco says it has and what SynQor believes Cisco

can produce. Inasmuch as Cisco says that it remains willing to further meet-and-confer over

any deficiencies in its production, SynQor’s motion will be granted as to these requests. 

However, the court notes that Cisco says that it has already produced everything it has and that

there likely are no more documents to be produced.

B. Worldwide Sales Data for Cisco’s IBA Products (Requests 4-7)

These requests seek documents sufficient to show where and by whom IBA products are

sold; the quantities of IBA products (in units and dollars) made and sold from July 4, 2006 to

the present, as well as the percentage of total units of IBA product that have been made, sold,

offered for sale, and/or imported into the United States since July 4, 2006. Cisco argues that in

meet-and-confer negotiations, SynQor indicated that it wanted U.S. sales data. Indeed, that is

corroborated by the record. (See DeZern Decl., Ex. H). Nevertheless, there is no apparent

dispute that the requested worldwide sales information has some relevance, and Cisco has not

Case 5:10-mc-80144-JW Document 19 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The court assumes that, if Cisco reasonably needs more time to produce the

documents being ordered in response to these and other requests, SynQor will, within reason

under the existing discovery schedule, work with Cisco to select another date for the

deposition.

4

substantiated its assertions of undue burden. Accordingly, SynQor’s motion on this issue is

granted. Cisco shall endeavor to produce the information prior to the upcoming deposition.1

C. Use of Defendants’ Components (Requests 8-12)

These requests seek documents sufficient to show the suppliers of various components

of Cisco’s IBA products, as well as Cisco’s projected and actual allocations of its contract

manufacturer’s purchases for that IBA product. It appears that Request 9 is the only one

remaining in dispute—the sticking point being whether Cisco has legal “control” over

documents in the possession or custody of its contract manufacturers.

“Control is defined as the legal right to obtain documents upon demand.” United States

v. Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989)

(concluding that an international union did not “control” the election records of its affiliated

local unions and therefore could not be compelled to comply with a subpoena for those

records). The party seeking production of documents bears the burden of proving that the party

responding to discovery has such control. Id. “Control must be firmly placed in reality, not in

an esoteric concept such as ‘inherent relationship.’” Id. at 1454-55 (citations omitted). Thus,

the court examines whether actual, not theoretical, control exists. Id.

Citing In re Legato Sys., Inc. Securities Litig., 204 F.R.D. 167 (N.D. Cal. 2001), SynQor

argues that Cisco has legal “control” over its contract manufacturers’ documents by virtue of its

business relationship with them. However, Legato is readily distinguishable. The court in that

case held that the defendant had legal control over the transcript of his own testimony before the

SEC, even though the transcript itself was in the SEC’s possession. Id. at 170. Legato does not

suggest that a mere business relationship will suffice to confer legal control by one company

over the documents of another. SynQor has not convincingly demonstrated that Cisco has legal

control over the documents of its contract manufacturers. Accordingly, its motion on this issue

is denied.

Case 5:10-mc-80144-JW Document 19 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

D. Documents re Defendants’ State of Mind (Requests 13-15)

These requests essentially seek documents sufficient to show that Cisco’s suppliers (i.e.,

defendants in the underlying action) know that (a) their unregulated and semi-regulated bus

converters and point-of-load converters are used in Cisco’s IBA product; (b) the IBA product is

made or sold in the U.S. and (c) the unregulated and semi-regulated converters and point-ofload converters (POLs) are used in an IBA power supply design. In sum, SynQor seeks

documents showing that the defendants know that their products are being used in an infringing

manner. Cisco essentially objects on the grounds that it is not a mind-reader and that any such

documents should be produced by defendants.

This court agrees that SynQor’s subpoena, as drafted, is vague and ambiguous and

should be reasonably limited. Further, it appears that plaintiff’s meet-and-confer efforts were

somewhat confusing as to what SynQor really sought, inasmuch as plaintiff’s counsel’s

correspondence seemed to suggest that these requests could be limited to documents identifying

viable alternatives to IBAs. (See DeZern Decl., Ex. L at 2). Moreover, SynQor has not

provided much information to aid this court in determining what a fair and reasonable limit

might be. At the motion hearing, SynQor indicated that it is willing to limit Cisco’s search to

one or two people that plaintiff believes may have responsive information. This court has no

information as to who those people are, and SynQor could not identify the individuals its

counsel apparently had in mind. Nevertheless, Cisco did say that there are people at the

company who have contact with defendants with respect to qualifying defendants’ parts. 

Accordingly, SynQor’s motion as to this request is granted as follows: Cisco shall conduct a

diligent inquiry and reasonable search for responsive documents from two employees who have

the most knowledge about and responsibility for dealing with defendants with respect to

qualifying defendants’ parts. Cisco shall endeavor to produce any non-privileged, responsive

documents prior to its deposition. SynQor’s motion is otherwise denied.

E. Documents re Alternatives to IBA Designs (RFPs 16-19)

These requests seek all documents and/or communications about (a) SynQor’s

unregulated or semi-regulated bus converters; (b) praise for any unregulated or semi-regulated

Case 5:10-mc-80144-JW Document 19 Filed 08/09/10 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

IBA power supply design; (c) Cisco’s introduction to an unregulated or semi-regulated IBA

power supply design; and (d) the reasons and motivations behind Cisco’s adoption of an

unregulated or semi-regulated IBA power supply design for its products. Cisco’s papers

suggests that only Requests 18 and 19 are at issue.

This court finds that the subpoena reasonably could be construed to encompass products

from more recent times, as opposed to only those products existing at the time of Cisco’s

original efforts to incorporate IBA components in its products. (See Request No. 19). The

documents do have some bearing on the issues reportedly in dispute in the underlying litigation. 

Cisco claims that these requests would encompass practically all of its products, but says that it

is nonetheless willing to conduct a targeted search for further responsive documents. 

Accordingly, SynQor’s motion as to this issue is granted as follows: Cisco shall conduct a

diligent inquiry and reasonable search for responsive documents from two employees who are

most knowledgeable about Cisco’s decision to use of IBAs versus other alternatives. Cisco

shall endeavor to produce any non-privileged, responsive documents prior to its deposition.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

August 9, 2010

Case 5:10-mc-80144-JW Document 19 Filed 08/09/10 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

5:10-mc-80144-JW Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Aaron Ritter Bleharski ableharski@sidley.com, lbrodkin@sidley.com, tgaleana@sidley.com

Kurt Max Pankratz kurt.pankratz@bakerbotts.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:10-mc-80144-JW Document 19 Filed 08/09/10 Page 7 of 7