vPersonalize Inc v. Magnetize Consultants Ltd ( 2019 )

1 HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE vPersonalize Inc., 8 Case No.: 2:18-CV-01836-BJR Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION v. TO QUASH SUBPOENAS 10 Magnetize Consultants Ltd. (dba Kit Builder), 11 Defendant. 12 13 The Court is in receipt of the Joint Motion to Quash Subpoenas filed by third parties Robert 14 Lee Hagelshaw and Balamurugan Selvarajan (“Respondents”). That motion asks the Court to 15 quash two subpoenas, directed at Respondents, seeking documents and things related to prior 16 litigation involving Respondents and, allegedly, the patents-in-suit, related 3D software design 17 projects, and other matters that may be relevant to this litigation. 18 The limits of discovery, including subpoenas directed at third parties, are governed by 19 federal rule. Those rules contemplate liberal discovery, to be allowed in the interests of justice and 20 the fair and complete resolution of disputes. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Parties may obtain 21 discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in 22 the pending action.”). Relevancy for the purposes of Rule 26 is broadly construed. See, e.g., Katz 23 v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc., 984 F.2d 422, 424 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 24 1 Critically here, the Respondents are not unrelated non-parties, strangers to the subject 2 matter of this litigation. According to documents submitted by Defendant, they are Plaintiff 3 vPersonalize’s CEO (Selvarajan), and CFO, General Counsel, and Secretary (Hagelshaw); and 4 both serve as corporate directors of the Plaintiff. Moreover, Respondents have failed to meet the 5 burden, which is theirs, of demonstrating that the documents and things being sought are beyond 6 the scope of this litigation, are unduly burdensome, or are irrelevant. The Court therefore DENIES 7 the Joint Motion to Quash. 8 Dated this 7th day of October, 2019. 9 10 A 11 Barbara Jacobs Rothstein 12 U.S. District Court Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on July 5, 2019 PST, I caused the foregoing [Proposed] Protective Order to be: 3 electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 4 notification of such filing to the following: Mudit Kakar 5 Boyoon Choi Choi Capital Law, PLLC 6 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1570 Seattle, WA 98121 7 Email: m.kakar@choicapitallaw.com Email: b.choi@choicapitallaw.com 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 10 By: /s/ Seth A. Watkins Seth A Watkins (D.C. Bar # 467470)* 11 * admitted pro hac vice Watkins Law & Advocacy, PLLC 12 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 13 (202) 355-9421 Fax: (202) 355-9424 14 Email: watkins@wlapllc.com Attorney for Defendant 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24