Optrics Inc v. Barracuda Networks Inc

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 OPTRICS INC, Case No. 17-cv-04977-RS (TSH)

8 Plaintiff,

DISCOVERY ORDER

9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 130 10 BARRACUDA NETWORKS INC., 11 Defendant.

12 13 Optrics attempted to serve a deposition subpoena on Barracuda’s lead trial counsel, 14 Karineh Khachatourian, which Barracuda now moves to quash. Leaving aside service of process 15 issues, the parties agree on the substantive legal standard that applies when you want to depose 16 opposing counsel: Optrics must establish “(1) the desired information cannot be obtained by any 17 other means; (2) the desired information is relevant and non-privileged; and (3) the desired 18 information is crucial to the preparation of the case.” Fausto v. Credigy Servs. Corp., 2008 WL 19 4793467, *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2008) (citing Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 20 (8th Cir. 1986)). 21 Optrics says Khachatourian had telephone conversations with a company called j2 22 concerning the latter’s alleged purchase of CudaMail. Optrics…