Vervain, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 VERVAIN, LLC, Case No. 22-mc-80292-TSH 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. TRANSFER 10 MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 7 11 Defendants. 12 13 Defendants Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron 14 Technology Texas, LLC (collectively, “Micron”) move the Court for entry of an order compelling 15 third party RPX Corporation to produce documents responsive to Micron’s subpoena served in 16 connection with a patent infringement action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western 17 District of Texas, Vervain, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., 6:21-cv-00487-ADA (W.D. 18 Tex.). ECF No. 1. RPX now moves to transfer Micron’s motion to the Western District of Texas, 19 noting that court has already resolved issues that largely overlap with those raised by Micron’s 20 subpoena, including discovery disputes between Vervain and Micron involving the extent to 21 which license agreements and related documents are discoverable. ECF No. 7 (citing Vervain, 22 6:21-cv-00487-ADA, ECF No. 93. Micron has filed a statement of non-opposition. ECF No. 10. 23 Vervain has not responded. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f) provides that, “[w]hen the court where compliance is 25 required”—here, the Northern District of California—“did not issue the subpoena, it may transfer 26 a motion under this rule to the issuing court”—here, the Western District of Texas—“if the person 27 subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Further, exceptional circumstances warrant transferring Micron’s motion to the Western 2 || District of Texas as that court has already resolved issues that largely overlap with those raised by 3 || Micron’s subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, advisory committee’s note (“[T]ransfer may be 4 || warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court’s management of the underlying litigation, 5 as when that court has already ruled on issues presented by the motion[.]”; see also Moon 6 || Mountain Farms, LLC v. Rural Community Ins. Co., 301 F.R.D. 426, 429 (N.D. Cal. 2014) 7 (“When the issuing court has already ruled on issues presented by a subpoena-related motion, 8 exceptional circumstances exist and the court of compliance may transfer the motion to the issuing 9 || court.”). 10 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS RPX’s motion. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to 11 transfer this case to the Western District of Texas for consideration of Micron’s motion to compel. IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: November 28, 2022 AY \ . Lj — THOMAS S. HIXSON = 16 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28