District Court, W.D. Washington, 2019

Innovation Sciences LLC v. HTC Corporation

Innovation Sciences LLC v. HTC Corporation
District Court, W.D. Washington · Decided August 13, 2019
Innovation Sciences LLC v. HTC Corporation

Trial Court Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE C19-1025 TSZ IN RE TWO SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY INNOVATION SCIENCES, LLC related to Innovation Sciences, LLC v. HTC Corporation, E.D. Tex. No. 4:18-cv-474 ALM TO HTC AMERICA INC. MINUTE ORDER

11 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: (1) The motion, docket no. 1, brought by HTC America Inc. (“HTCA”), to quash a subpoena for documents dated June 5, 2019, docket nos. 1-2 & 1-3, and a subpoena for deposition dated June 5, 2019, docket nos. 1-4 & 1-5, is GRANTED.

14 These subpoenas were issued by Innovation Sciences, LLC, formerly known as Virginia Innovation Sciences, LLC (“VIS”), in connection with an action between VIS and HTC Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas, to which HTCA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of HTC Corporation, is not a party. VIS indicates that it “does not care” which entity, HTCA or HTC Corporation, produces the information sought by way of the subpoenas in question. See Resp. at 1-2 (docket no. 2). The Court may limit otherwise permissible discovery if the materials sought are “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative” or “can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1) & (3)(A)(iv); see also In re Subpoena to Records Custodian for Rosse Cox Vucinovich Flaskamp PC, 2009 WL 10676364 at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 19, 2009).

Because VIS seeks items that were already disclosed by HTC Corporation and/or are available from HTC Corporation through the ordinary course of discovery, including any appropriate motion to compel, in the litigation pending before the Eastern District of Texas, the subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificatum are QUASHED. See Micro Motion, Inc. v. Kane Steel Co., Inc., 894 F.2d 1318, 1323, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) & 26(g).

1 (2) The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record.

Dated this 13th day of August, 2019.

William M. McCool Clerk s/Karen Dews Deputy Clerk

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.