Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Amiga Inc v. Hyperion VOF Doc.

97
Case 2:07-cv-00631-RSM Document 97 Filed 01/17/2008 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9 AMIGA, INC., a Delaware corporation,
10 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C07-631RSM
11 v. ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH
12 HYPERION VOF, a Belgium corporation,
13 Defendant.
14
15
This matter is before the Court for a ruling on plaintiff’s motion to quash. Dkt. # 88. Plaintiff has
16
moved for an Order quashing a subpoena duces tecum issued to third party Cairncross Hempelman, P.S.,
17
former counsel for Amino Development Corporation and Amiga, Inc., the Washington corporation.
18
Defendant has opposed the motion.
19
Plaintiff contends that the request to produce “all documents, not privileged, related to Amiga,
20
Inc., a Washington Corporation, a/k/a Amino Development Corporation” is overly broad, that such
21
production would be burdensome, and that the subpoena does not allow sufficient time to comply,
22
particularly since the time allowed for compliance included several holidays. In response, defendant
23
contends that plaintiff’s “burdensome” argument is a conclusory allegation unsupported by any evidence
24
that would demonstrate an actual burden. Plaintiff, in reply, states only that there are seven boxes of
25
documents in the possession of Cairncross Hempelman, P.S. Declaration of Robert Seidel, Dkt. # 95.
26
The Court finds that the volume of documents is not overly large, and that any of those seven
27
boxes are likely to contain documents relevant to the issues in this lawsuit and relating to the relevant
28
ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXPEDITED
DISCOVERY - 1

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:07-cv-00631-RSM Document 97 Filed 01/17/2008 Page 2 of 2

1 time frame, beginning sometime before the November 3, 2001 agreement and ending with the law firms’s
2 representation of Amiga, Inc. (Washington) in 2004. Even after that, the law firm was involved with
3 Amino Development Corporation (“Amino”). Id. Amino has been sued by defendant in a separate
4 lawsuit, and while the Court has declined to consolidate these cases for case management reasons,
5 discovery may be expedited by the document production requested here. The same counsel are
6 representing the parties in the two matters, and plaintiff Amino has represented to the Court that there are
7 no conflicts between it and Amiga, Inc. See, Hyperion VOF v. Amino Development Corporation, C07-
8 1761RSM, Dkt. # 17, p.5. The Court thus finds that the scope of the document request is not overly
9 broad, and that any burden to the third party deponent is greatly outweighed by the potential value of the
10 discovery to the defendant. Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 637 (C.D .Cal. 2005).
11 Defendant has offered to minimize any burden by reviewing the documents at the deponent law firm’s
12 office before they are copied, to identify which ones are actually needed.
13 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED. Deponent shall comply with the subpoena
14 for document production within 15 days of the date of this Order.
15 DATED this 17th day of January 2008.
16
17
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXPEDITED
DISCOVERY - 2

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi