![]() ![]() Basecamp's California counsel can present arguments against the subpoena in the Northern District of California. (noting that the "prime concern should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas"). Litigating this dispute in California will pose no meaningful burden on Basecamp, LLC, as illustrated by the fact that it retained counsel in California to resist the subpoena in Illinois. 45(f) advisory committee's note to 2013 amendment (noting that "transfer may be warranted in order to avoid disrupting the issuing court's management of the underlying litigation, as when that court has already ruled on issues presented by the motion or the same issues are likely to arise in discovery in many districts"). So nothing could be gained, and something could be lost, by having another judge in a faraway district decide the same thing. If this Court reached the issue, it would either make the same decision (leading to a waste of judicial resources), or make a different decision (creating inconsistent rulings). They have much greater expertise and familiarity with cases on their docket, and they have a well-oiled process for efficiently resolving discovery disputes. And in light of the rulings by Judge Starr and Judge McFadden, the presiding judges in California are going to decide these issues anyway. It does not make much sense for multiple judges to decide the same issue, if it can be avoided. After reviewing those orders, this Court agrees with their reasoning, and does the same thing for the same reasons. Tex.) and Judge McFadden (D.D.C.) recently granted comparable motions by Apple to transfer the discovery motions to the Northern District of California. Apple served comparable subpoenas in other districts, and later filed comparable subpoena-enforcement actions against other third parties in the Northern District of Texas and the District of Columbia. Given their intimate familiarity with the facts, they are best positioned to decide the appropriate scope of discovery in that complex litigation. Judge Gonzalez Rogers and Judge Hixson have presided over those cases for several years. Apple seeks documents from Basecamp, LLC, a third party, for use in several antitrust cases pending in the Northern District of California. Seeger: Apple's motion to transfer (Dckt. MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of California the electronic record. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. ![]() (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on )Ĭase transferred in from District of Illinois Northern Case Number 1:21-cv-03860. Within 14 days, the parties shall file a status report concerning Apple's pending motion to compel. (Dixon, Douglas) (Filed on )ĭISCOVERY ORDER: The Court orders the parties to review the Augdiscovery order in Apple, Inc. STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO COMPEL filed by Basecamp, LLC. Hixson granting #26 Stipulation withdrawing Motion to Compel.(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on ) This docket was last retrieved on September 3, 2021. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |