United States District Court, D. Delaware
In Re TQ DELTA and JASON H. VICK.
E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan, FARNAN LLP, Wilmington, DE;
James P. Murphy, MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD, Chicago,
IL; Patricia Y. Ho, SHERIDAN ROSS PC, Denver, CO, attorneys
for Plaintiff TQ Delta and nonparty Jason H. Vick.
C. Barillare, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Wilmington, DE;
Kenneth L. Dorsney, MORRIS JAMES LLP, Wilmington, DE,
attorneys for Defendants.
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is Plaintiff TQ Delta and nonparty Jason H.
Vick's Motion to Quash Defendants' subpoenas to Jason
H. Vick. (D.I. 1). The parties have fully briefed the issues.
(D.I. 1, D.I. 22, D.I. 23). For the following reasons, the
Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff and
Vick's Motion to Quash.
TQ Delta ("Plaintiff) and Defendants Pace PLC, 2 Wire,
ZyXEL Communications, Inc. ZyXEL Communications Corporation
and Adtran ("Defendants") are engaged in ongoing
litigation within this District. (Nos. 13-cv-1835-RGA,
13-cv-2013-RGA, 14-cv-954-RGA, and 15-cv-121-RGA). On October
27, 2017, Defendants served four subpoenas in those actions
on nonparty Jason H. Vick ("Vick") in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado. (D.I. 1,
Ex 1.) The subpoenas were for deposition testimony and
production of documents. (Id.). On November 10,
2017, Plaintiff and Vick filed a motion to quash
Defendants' subpoenas and to transfer the motion to quash
to the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, where the litigation is ongoing. (D.I. 1). On
December 4, 2017, the Motion to Quash was transferred to this
District. (D.I. 14).
an attorney at Sheridan Ross, PC, a law firm in Denver,
Colorado. (D.I. 3 ¶ 1). Vick and the Sheridan Ross law
firm have represented Plaintiff and Plaintiffs
predecessor-in-interest, Aware. (Id. ¶¶
4-5). During these representations, Vick has prosecuted
numerous patents for both Plaintiff and Aware, including the
timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a
subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to
comply, . .. (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other
protected matter ... or (iv) subjects a person to undue
burden." Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3). "The party seeking
to quash the subpoena bears the burden of demonstrating that
the requirements of Rule 45 are satisfied." Malibu
Media, LLC v. John Does 1-15, 2012 WL 3089383, at *5
(E.D. Pa. 2012). "Courts have described this as a heavy
and Vick assert that the Court should grant the motion to
quash for the following reasons: (1) the vast majority of the
documents and information requested are subject to
attorney-client privilege; (2) any non-privileged relevant
information that may be covered by the request can be
obtained from more convenient sources; (3) compliance with
the subpoenas will subject Vick to undue burden and (4) the
subpoenas do not allow reasonable time to comply. (D.I. 1).
Plaintiff and Vick further request that the Court sanction
Defendants. (Id. at 14).
argue that the motion should be denied because (1) Plaintiff
lacks standing to challenge the subpoenas; (2) the requested
discovery is relevant to the ongoing litigation; (3) the
failure to provide a privilege log defeats the claim of
attorney-client privilege; and (4) Plaintiff and Vick cannot
show that every question asked at a deposition would
be privileged. (D.I. 22). Defendants also assert that there
are no grounds for sanctions. (Id. at 14).
Plaintiff s Standing
assert Plaintiff lacks standing to move to quash a nonparty
subpoena. Plaintiffs standing is irrelevant. The motion to
quash is made by both Plaintiff and Vick. (D.I. 1). As the
nonparty to whom the subpoenas are directed, Vick clearly has
standing to move to quash the subpoenas.
Whether the Subpoenas Provided a Reasonable ...