Scientific Applications & Research Associates (SARA), Inc. v. Zipline International, Inc.
3:22-cv-04480
N.D. Cal.Dec 6, 2024Background
- SARA (Scientific Applications & Research Associates, Inc.) sued Zipline International, Inc. for alleged patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation.
- As part of discovery, SARA issued a subpoena to Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC (a non-party and investor in Zipline) for documents regarding Sequoia’s valuation of Zipline.
- Sequoia objected that SARA should first seek the documents from Zipline, but after effort, SARA re-engaged with Sequoia to narrow its requests.
- SARA was dissatisfied with Sequoia’s production and filed a motion to compel further production, which the court denied, concluding SARA did not clearly show relevance of the requested documents.
- Sequoia then moved for attorney’s fees and costs, asserting that SARA’s subpoena and motion to compel were unduly burdensome, overbroad, and unjustified.
- The court considered written arguments but denied Sequoia’s motion for fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | SARA's Argument | Sequoia's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fees for responding to subpoena | Sought docs only after failing w/ Zipline | Subpoena was overbroad & premature | Denied; SARA pursued proper process, not sanctionable |
| Fees for opposing motion to compel | Docs may be relevant, attempted compromise | SARA failed to show docs' relevance | Denied; Burdens relate to compliance, not litigation |
| Bad faith / undue burden by SARA | Did not act in bad faith, sought to confer | Subpoena & motion imposed undue burden | No bad faith or oppressive tactics found |
| Sanctions under Rule 45/Rule 37 | No basis for sanctions under these rules | Rule 45/37 support cost shifting | Sanctions unwarranted; fees and costs denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Legal Voice v. Stormans Inc., 738 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2013) (clarifies that merely losing a motion to compel does not warrant Rule 45 sanctions)
- Mount Hope Church v. Bash Back!, 705 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2012) (interprets "undue burden" in Rule 45 as relating to the burden of compliance, not litigation)
- Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (addresses third-party subpoena procedure and proper order of seeking discovery)