Roe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ZOOM IMAGING SOLUTIONS, INC., No. 2:19–cv–1544–WBS–KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. (ECF Nos. 132, 133, 193, 194.) EDWARD ROE, et al., Defendants. 16 This order concerns defendants’ motions to compel responses to two subpoenas. (ECF Nos. 132, 133, 193, 194.) At the February 18, 2022 hearing, Attorneys Thomas Woods and Nicolas Karkazis appeared for defendants Power and Roe, David Garcia appeared for plaintiff Zoom, and Charles Tweedy appeared for third-party respondents Wizix and Johnson. (ECF No. 207.) For the reasons that follow, Power and Roe’s motions to compel are GRANTED IN FULL. /// /// /// 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned by 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(1). DISCUSSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(1)(A)(iii) grants a party the authority to seek a subpoena commanding a nonparty to “produce designated documents, electronically stored 4 …