Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02000/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02000-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,

Defendant. /

No. C-04-02000 CW (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY

MICROSEMI’S MOTION TO QUASH

SUBPOENA

 On or about August 8, 2006, MPS served a subpoena on non-party Microsemi, seeking

deposition testimony on the structure, function and operation, and conception and reduction to

practice of many of Microsemi’s products. The subpoena also sought document production

regarding the first sale of many of Microsemi’s products as well as datasheets and application notes

for some products. Microsemi argues that the information sought in the subpoena is highly

confidential, and filed this motion to quash. The motion to quash was fully briefed by the parties. 

Because the matter was appropriate for decision without oral argument, the Court vacated the

September 26, 2006 hearing. 

For attendance at a deposition, a subpoena must issue “from the court for the district where

the deposition is to be taken, stating the method for recording the testimony.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

45(a)(2)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, Advisory Committee Notes, 1991 amendment (“Pursuant to

Paragraph (a)(2), a subpoena for a deposition must still issue from the court in which the deposition

or production would be compelled.”). Failure to issue a subpoena from the correct district court

renders it void. See, e.g., James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 206 F.R.D. 15, 19 (D. D.C. 2002)

(citing Echostar Communications Corp. v. News Corp., Ltd., 180 F.R.D. 391, 396-97 (D. Colo.

1998)); William Schwarzer, et al., Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, The Rutter Group, §

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 473 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 2
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

11:2262. 

MPS responds that the subpoena properly issued from this Court because California Code of

Civil Procedure section 1989 authorizes state-wide service of subpoenas and section 1989 is

incorporated into Rule 45(b)(1). See Cambridge Filter Corp. v. Int’l Filter Co., 548 F. Supp. 1308,

1311 (D. Nev. 1982). This argument conflates issuance of a subpoena and service of a subpoena. 

Further, the Cambridge case, cited by MPS, is distinguishable in that it addresses whether to transfer

an action to another district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and only mentions service of subpoenas

in reference to the convenience of witnesses under that statute. Moreover, the Cambridge court does

not appear to cite the current version of section 1989, which refers to circumstances under which a

witness would not have to appear in court or elsewhere. 

Here, the subpoena was issued from the Northern District of California, but set the place of

the deposition and for production of documents in Irvine, California, which is in the Central District

of California. Therefore, the subpoena is void on its face. Accordingly, Microsemi’s motion to

quash is granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 473 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 2