Opinion
No. C 05-80042-MISC JSW.
March 17, 2005
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL SUBPOENA
On March 4, 2005, the parties appeared before this Court on the Pabst parties' motion to compel compliance with a subpoena duces tecum served on Maxtor in January 2004. Following that hearing, the Court ordered the Pabst parties to submit a supplemental brief which set forth each disputed request, the basis for which the documents were relevant and reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and their position as to why Maxtor's production was insufficient. Maxtor was ordered, in turn, to respond to each specific request and to provide a declaration from a client representative regarding its position.
The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer prior to submitting the supplemental briefing. It is apparent that the parties did comply with the spirit, if not the letter, of that Order. In addition, based upon the parties' supplemental submissions, it would appear that there are no disputes about the relevance of the Pabst parties' requests.
Having considered the pleadings, relevant legal authority, and having had the benefit of oral argument, the Court HEREBY GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Pabst parties' motion.
At the hearing on March 4, 2005, based upon the representations made by counsel, the Court denied the motion to compel as to request number 1. Maxtor has now provided a client declaration that there are no further non-privileged documents that are responsive to this request. Accordingly, the Court's Order set forth on the record on March 4, 2005 as to this request stands.
Maxtor has also certified as to Requests 2, 7, 10, 12, 15, and 16, that it either has no documents responsive to these requests or no additional non-privileged documents that are responsive to these requests. Accordingly, the motion to compel is DENIED as to those requests.
As to requests 3 and 13, which relate to information regarding Maxtor's share of the HDD market, Maxtor objected to providing documents responsive to those requests, on the ground that the information was publicly available. In its supplemental response, Maxtor explains that it purchases information on market share from public sources and is contractually prohibited from sharing that information. In light of those representations, the Court concludes that to compel Maxtor to comply with these requests would be unreasonable, and the motion to compel is DENIED as to those requests.
Through Requests 4 and 5, the Pabst parties seek information that would show the destination of Maxtor's hard disk drives (HDDs), information that the Pabst parties claim is relevant an exhaustion issue. In response, Maxtor states that it has "produced purchase orders for its HDD motor purchases from which the Pabst parties could determine whether the purchases qualify for exhaustion." (Maxtor Supp. Brief. at 4-5.) Maxtor also states that it "has no information as to the `destination' of the HDDs it sells and therefore has no documents or information responsive to this request."
Although it is evident from the record that Maxtor has produced information about its purchases of motors for the HDDs it manufactures ( see id. and Maxtor Opp. Brief at 3), it is not clear to the Court that Maxtor has produced documents reflecting to whom it sells the actual HDDs (apart from Minebea). While it is true that Maxtor may not have information in its possession, custody or control, relating to the ultimate destination of those HDDs after they are shipped to a customer, it would appear to the Court that information such as purchase orders for or invoices for its hard disk drives would provide at least some information about the "destination" of the HDDs. Thus, to the extent Maxtor has such purchase orders, invoices, or other such documents, and has not yet produced those documents to the Pabst parties, the motion to compel is GRANTED as to these requests. Maxtor SHALL produce any such documents in its possession, custody, or control to the Pabst parties within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order.
For the foregoing reasons, the Pabst parties' motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
The Clerk is directed to close this file.