1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-10628 

 (consolidated with Case No. 15-11624) 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. et al.

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING NON-PARTY STACY COOPES’ MOTION TO 

QUASH DEFENDANT VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC.’S SUBPOENA TO 

TESTIFY AT DEPOSITION (ECF #632)1

 On January 28, 2019, Defendant Versata Software, Inc. served a subpoena on 

non-party Stacy Coopes. (See Subpoena, ECF #635-3.) The subpoena required 

Coopes to appear for a deposition on February 20, 2019. (See id.) Counsel for 

Coopes thereafter attempted to work with Versata’s counsel “to understand the 

purported relevance of her testimony.” (Coopes Reply Br., ECF #639 at Pg. ID 

48757.) When those negotiations failed to resolve the need for the subpoena, Coopes 

                                                            

1

 Versata titled its response to Coopes’ motion to quash “Versata’s Response in 

Opposition to Stacy Coopes’ Motion to Quash and Counter-Motion to Compel 

Compliance with Subpoena.” (See ECF #635.) However, under this Court’s Local 

Rules, “a response or reply to a motion must not be combined with a countermotion.” E.D. Mich. Local Rules, Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures, at 

R5(f). Versata’s counter-motion is therefore not properly before the Court. 

Nonetheless, the Court declines to grant Versata any relief and compel Coopes to 

comply with the subpoena for all of the reasons that it grants her motion to quash. 
2 

filed the instant motion to quash. (See Mot., ECF #632.) For the reasons that follow, 

the motion is GRANTED.

2

I 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 provides that a district court “must” quash 

a subpoena if the subpoena “subjects a person to an undue burden.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 

45(d)(3)(A)(iv). “A decision whether to quash a subpoena is made on a case-bycase basis and consists of a balancing of the interests; that is, the Court must weigh 

the burden of compliance against the potential value of the information sought. The 

burden of demonstrating undue burden is on the moving party. However, the burden 

of demonstrating relevance is on the party seeking discovery.” Hansen Beverage Co. 

v. Innovation Ventures, LLC, 2009 WL 1543451, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2009) 

(Rosen, J.) (internal citations omitted) (granting non-party’s motion to quash 

subpoena for deposition and documents). In addition, “[t]he fact of nonparty status 

may be considered by the court in weighing the burdens imposed.” Katz v. Batavia 

Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc., 984 F.2d 422, 424 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (affirming 

district court order quashing subpoena for deposition and documents directed to nonparty). Finally, the Court acknowledges that “[t]he scope of discovery under the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is broad” and that “‘[r]elevant information need 

                                                            

2

 The Court concludes that it may resolve this motion without oral argument. See 

E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). 
3 

not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead 

to the discovery of admissible evidence.’” MSC.Software Corp. v. Altair 

Engineering, Inc., 2012 WL 3224130, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 6, 2012) (quoting 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)). 

II 

 The burden of requiring Coopes to engage counsel and prepare for and attend 

a deposition outweighs the minimal potential value of the information Versata seeks. 

 Coopes has never worked for Ford Motor Company, is not a technical expert, 

and is not familiar with the term “ACM,” the name of Versata’s software that is at 

issue in this case. (See Coopes Affidavit at ¶¶ 3-5, ECF #632-4 at Pg. ID 48650-51.) 

Nor has Coopes had “any involvement with engineering, manufacturing, or product 

development software.” (Id. at ¶5, ECF #632-4 at Pg. ID 48651.) 

It appears that Versata seeks to take Coopes deposition solely because, 

according to Versata, she “participated in a conversation with Elana Ford in which 

Ms. Ford stated that Ford should terminate its relationship with Versata.” (Versata 

Resp. Br., ECF #635 at Pg. ID 48698.) Versata therefore argues that Coopes has 

relevant “firsthand, personal knowledge of statements by Elena Ford regarding 

Ford’s relationship with Versata.” (Id. at Pg. ID 48702-03.) 

But the Court has previously held that Versata could not take the deposition 

of Ms. Ford related to the statements that Versata claims she made. (See Order, ECF 
4 

#441 at Pg. ID 34498.) For all of the reasons discussed on the record at a March 9, 

2018, hearing on Versata’s request to depose Ms. Ford, including in the Court’s 

questioning of counsel, the Court is not persuaded that even if Ms. Ford made the 

statements, the statements are relevant in any meaningful way to any of the claims 

or defenses at issue in this action. (See 3/9/2018 Hearing Tr., ECF #444 at Pg. ID 

36870-95.) As the Court noted during the March 9 hearing, the record contains 

evidence with respect to how Ford made the decision to terminate its relationship 

with Versata and who at Ford played a role in making that decision, and the Court is 

not yet persuaded that Ms. Ford was meaningfully involved in that decision and/or 

that her statements, if made, played any meaningful role in that decision. 

Simply put, any inquires related to Ms. Ford are a sideshow. Given that 

conclusion, and the Court’s previous refusal to allow Versata to depose Ms. Ford, it 

sees no basis to allow Versata to depose Coopes, whose only apparent relevance is 

overhearing Ms. Ford’s irrelevant statement. 

Moreover, Versata has not presented any argument or evidence that Coopes 

was in any way involved in Ford’s relationship with Versata, the decision to 

terminate that relationship, or that Coopes even knows what Versata is or what kind 

of software Versata developed for Ford. The value of the irrelevant information that 

Versata seeks from Coopes is therefore minimal. And Coopes, a non-party, would 

be unduly burdened by having to retain counsel and take hours out of her schedule 
5 

to prepare for and appear at a deposition. See Hansen, 2009 WL 1543451, at *3 

(“[T]he irrelevance of the document request and Mr. Edwards’ testimony ... makes 

even [a] seemingly low burden into an undue one, and an undue burden is grounds 

for quashal”). 

For all of these reasons, Coopes’ motion to quash Versata’s subpoena (ECF 

#632) is GRANTED. Versata is not permitted to take the deposition of Coopes. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: May 28, 2019 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on May 28, 2019, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764