Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04100/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04100-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GIACALONE ELECTRICAL SERVICES,

INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

WESCO DISTRIBUTION, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 03-4100 JW (PVT)

INTERIM ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO COMPEL ASCENT

ELECTRICAL SUPPLY AND SUNSET

ELECTRICAL SUPPLY TO COMPLY

WITH SUBPOENAS 

On March 7, 2005, Defendants filed motions to compel non-parties Ascent Electrical Supply,

Inc. (“Ascent”) and Sunset Electrical Supply, Inc. (“Sunset”) to comply with subpoenas Defendants

served on them.1 Ascent and Sunset opposed the motion. Defendants then filed a reply in which

they seek to address any issues that may arise regarding two new subpoenas they intend to serve on

Defendants. Having reviewed the papers submitted by Defendants, Ascent and Sunset, the court

finds it appropriate to issue this interim order. Based on the moving, opposition and reply papers

submitted, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the two new subpoenas attached as Exhibits A and B to the

Case 5:03-cv-04100-JW Document 125 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 Rule 45 requires only that the subpoenas be “delivered” to the subpoenaed person.

Personal service is not required, so long as the method used to serve the subpoena reasonably assures

actual delivery to the person subpoenaed. See Doe v. Hersemann, 155 F.R.D. 630, 630 (N.D.Ind.1994)

(allowing service by certified mail). The court is satisfied that the electronic filing of the subpoenas (as

exhibits to the Shugars Declaration), notice of which was sent to counsel for Ascent and Sunset, along

with the requirements of this order, reasonably assures that copies the subpoenas will be delivered to

Ascent and Sunset.

ORDER, page 2

Declaration of Jennifer F. Shugars in Support of Reply in Further Support of Motions to Compel

Ascent Electrical Supply and Sunset Electrical Supply (filed herein on May 17, 2005) are DEEMED

SERVED on Ascent and Sunset as of the date this order is filed.2 Counsel for Ascent and Sunset

shall promptly provide copies of those subpoenas to Ascent and Sunset. Ascent and Sunset shall

serve on Defendants any objections to these subpoenas within 5 court days after this order is filed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sunset may also serve on Defendants within 5 court days

after this order is filed any objections it has to the subpoena that was served on it last July. Based on

the declarations filed by both Sunset and Defendants it appears likely that service of said subpoena

was adequate. Sunset’s failure to serve any objections to the subpoena is technically sufficient

grounds for finding a waiver of any objections. However, in light of Defendants’ decision to burden

Sunset with yet another subpoena, the court finds it equitable to allow Sunset an opportunity to assert

any valid objections it has to the prior subpoena along with its objections to the new subpoena.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than June 3, 2005 counsel for Defendants and

counsel for Ascent and Sunset shall meet and confer in person in San Jose, California regarding all

disputes regarding all four subpoenas. The fact that Sunset was previously sued by Defendant

WESCO does not relieve it of its obligation to produce documents relevant to the claims and

defenses in the current litigation in response to valid subpoenas. Nor does the fact that Defendants

are competitors of Sunset and Ascent automatically preclude the discovery. Instead, a determination

must be made regarding whether the potential for harm to the non-party competitor outweighs the

subpoenaing parties’ need for relevant, but confidential, documents. See, e.g., Mannington Mills.

Inc. v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 206 F.R.D. 525 (D. Del. 2002). Further, Defendants are

obliged to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on Ascent and Sunset. 

See, FED.R.CIV.PRO. 26(c)(1). Toward that end, the meet and confer session should address: 1) a

Case 5:03-cv-04100-JW Document 125 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 Some of the categories in the subpoenas do appear to be too broad for document requests

directed at non-parties. Even for non-confidential information, Defendants must restrict the document

requests to just those documents necessary to prepare their defense in the current action. Ascent and

Sunset can facilitate such limitation of the categories by providing Defense counsel with information

about how they maintain their records. Ascent and Sunset are cautioned that failure to cooperate in this

manner during the meet and confer process may ultimately warrant an order compelling production

pursuant to the broader categories of documents requested.

ORDER, page 3

reasonable scope for the production in light of the aforementioned considerations;3 2) whether any

modification of the Stipulated Protective Order (filed herein on June 17, 2004) is necessary to

adequately protect the non-parties’ confidential information throughout this litigation; and

3) appropriate compensation for the cost of employee time and copying charges Ascent and Sunset

incur to comply with the subpoenas.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event that Defendants and Ascent and/or Sunset are

unable to resolve all of their disputes regarding the subpoenas, Defendants may file a renewed

motion on shortened time. The renewed motion shall specifically address each category in dispute,

and shall give at least 14 days notice of the hearing (which shall be set for a Tuesday at 10:00 a.m.). 

Opposition papers shall be filed at least 7 calendar days before the hearing. No reply papers shall be

filed.

Dated: 5/19/05

 /s/ Patricia V. Trumbull 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-04100-JW Document 125 Filed 05/19/05 Page 3 of 3