Versata Software, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company
2:15-cv-10628
E.D. Mich.May 28, 2019Background
- Non-party Stacy Coopes was served with a subpoena by Defendant Versata to testify at a February 20, 2019 deposition; Coopes moved to quash.
- Counsel for Coopes attempted to confer with Versata about the subpoena’s relevance but could not resolve the dispute.
- Coopes averred she never worked for Ford, has no technical expertise, no involvement with engineering or product-development software, and did not know the term “ACM.”
- Versata asserted Coopes had firsthand knowledge because she allegedly overheard a statement by Elana (Elena) Ford about terminating Ford’s relationship with Versata.
- The court previously denied Versata leave to depose Ms. Ford about similar statements, concluding those statements were not meaningfully relevant to the case.
- The court found the burden on non-party Coopes (retaining counsel, preparing, attending deposition) outweighed the minimal potential value of her testimony and granted the motion to quash.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the subpoena to a non-party should be quashed for undue burden | Coopes: testifying would impose undue burden on non-party with no relevant involvement | Versata: Coopes overheard statements by Elena Ford that are relevant and thus justify deposition | Court: Quashed — burden on Coopes outweighs minimal relevance |
| Whether Coopes has relevant knowledge about Ford–Versata relationship | Coopes: she lacks involvement or knowledge about Ford’s decision or Versata’s software | Versata: Coopes has firsthand knowledge of Elena Ford’s statement about terminating Versata | Court: Coopes’ testimony would only repeat an irrelevant statement previously deemed not meaningful; not allowed |
| Whether non-party status affects subpoena balancing | Coopes: non-party status increases weight of undue-burden argument | Versata: non-party status not dispositive if testimony is relevant | Court: Non-party status considered and supports quash given low relevance |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc., 984 F.2d 422 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (affirming that nonparty status may be considered when quashing subpoenas for deposition and documents)