Published on:

Judge Andrews denies motion to compel compliance with subpoena for failure to file in proper jurisdiction, orders briefing on sanctions

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently considered plaintiff’s motion to compel third party Broadcom to produce documents in response to a subpoena.  TQ Delta LLC v. 2Wire Inc., No. 13-1835-RGA (D. Del. June 13, 2017).  Broadcom opposed the motion arguing that plaintiff was required to file the motion in the district where compliance was required, i.e., the Central District of California.  Id. at 2.  Judge Andrews agreed. “While the Rules specifically provide for jurisdiction here, in the district where the litigation is pending, for issuance of the subpoena, they vest jurisdiction over compliance with the subpoena in the ‘district of compliance.'”  Id. at 3.  Because Broadcom is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine, California, there was “no reasonable basis for Plaintiff to believe that the District of Delaware was the proper jurisdiction for Plaintiff’s motion.”  Id.  Judge Andrews also ordered briefing on Broadcom’s request for attorneys’ fees for having to oppose the motion.  Id. at 3-4.

UPDATE: On August 9, Judge Andrews issued a subsequent order denying Broadcom’s request for attorneys fees. Judge Andrews found that Broadcom’s motion was “substantially justified” under Rule 37 both because “Broadcom had already actively participated in this case in this court” and because of a “similar [but] not the same” situation in another case before Judge Andrews in which His Honor “resolved a motion to compel involving a non-party over jurisdictional objections similar to those here.” TQ Delta LLC v. 2Wire Inc., C.A. No. 13-1835-RGA, Memo. Or. at 1-2 (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2017).

TQ Delta LLC v. 2Wire Inc., C.A. No. 13-1835-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2017).

TQ Delta v. 2Wire Inc., No. 13-1835-RGA (D. Del. June 13, 2017)

Contact Information