1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,

7 Case No. 20-cv-04616-SBA (JCS) Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY 9 LETTER

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY

10 COMPANY OF AMERICA, Re: Dkt. No. 63 11 Defendant.

12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 This is a discovery dispute involving Defendant Travelers Property Casualty Company of 15 America (“Travelers”) and non-party NSG Technology, Inc. (“NSG”). Based on interrogatory 16 responses provided by Plaintiff Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (“MPS”) identifying one of the 17 corporate clients that was affected by the defective integrated circuits that gave rise MPS’s claims 18 as “Foxconn Technology Group” (“Foxconn”), Travelers issued two subpoenas (“Subpoenas”) 19 under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure directed to “Foxconn,” which it served by 20 delivering them to the business address at 1705 Junction Ct., Suite 200, San Jose CA 95112. That 21 business address belongs to NSG but the building in which it is located has a sign for “Foxconn” 22 on the outside and Google maps also describes the building address as “Foxconn.” NSG objects to 23 the Subpoenas in the joint letter presently before the Court. Travelers, in turn, seeks to compel 24 compliance with the Subpoenas and demands that “Foxconn” respond that it has no responsive 25 documents or information before it will withdraw the Subpoenas. The Court DENIES Travelers’ 26 request. 27 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 1 a court pursuant to Rule 45(c)” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In re Jee, 104 B.R. 289, 2 293 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1989) (citing Ghandi v. Police Department of the City of Detroit, 74 F.R.D. 3 115, 120 (E.D. Mich. 1977); Elder–Beerman Stores Corp. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 4 45 F.R.D. 515, 516 (S.D.N.Y.1968)). If the non-party named in the subpoena is a corporation, the 5 corporation is amenable to service in any forum within which the corporation has sufficient 6 minimum contacts. Id. (citing Ghandi, 74 F.R.D. at 121 (citing International Shoe Co. v. 7 Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)); and Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 8 408 (1984)). 9 Under Rule 4, a corporation may be served by “delivering a copy of the [subpoena] to an 10 officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to 11 receive service of process and—if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so 12 requires—by also mailing a copy to the [person to whom the subpoena is directed].” Fed. R. Civ. 13 P. 4(h)(1)(B). Further, Rule 4 authorizes service in the manner approved under state law. Fed. R. 14 Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(A), 4(e)(1). 15 In California, service on a corporation may be made upon “a general manager, or a person 16 authorized by the corporation to receive service of process.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §416.10(b) 17 (addressing service on “[c]orporations generally”). “A related service-of-process statute, 18 California Corporations Code . . . § 2110, permits service of process upon a foreign corporation 19 transacting business in California by serving ‘its general manager in this state.’” U.S. ex rel. Miller 20 v. Pub. Warehousing Co. KSC, 636 F. App’x 947, 948 (9th Cir. 2016). The term “general 21 manager” is not defined in either statute, but California courts have found that the term includes 22 any agent of the corporation “of sufficient character and rank to make it reasonably certain that the 23 defendant will be apprised of the service made.” Gibble v. Car-Lene Rsch., Inc., 67 Cal. App. 4th 24 295, 313 (1998) (citations omitted). 25 A “general manager” may be an individual or an entity. Khachatryan v. Toyota Motor 26 Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 578 F. Supp. 2d 1224, 1227 (C.D. Cal. 2008). Thus, a California entity may be 27 found to be a “general manager” where the foreign corporation’s relationship with the California 1 enjoyed if it conducted its business through its own offices or paid agents in the state[.]” Id. 2 (citations and internal quotations omitted). 3 || II. DISCUSSION 4 As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that the Subpoenas are unenforceable because they 5 are directed to “Foxconn.” NGS asserts that “Foxconn” is not a legal entity but instead is a trade 6 || name used by “several disparate companies worldwide[,]” and Travelers does not dispute that this 7 || is true. It argues it properly directed the Subpoenas to “Foxconn” because that is how MPS 8 identified the company in its interrogatory responses, but it does not explain how it is even 9 || possible for a conglomeration of companies that is not itself a single legal entity to respond to the 10 Subpoenas. 11 Travelers also argues that service was proper because NSG acts as “Foxconn’s” “general 12 || manager” for purposes of service, asserting in particular that even if the office where it served the 13 Subpoenas belongs to a business with a different name, “the use of the name ‘Foxconn’ on the 14 || building and online indicates that the office has a relationship with the foreign entity such that it 15 || presents business advantages that Foxconn would enjoy if it conducted business in the state itself.” 16 || Even if “Foxconn” is a legal entity that can respond to a Rule 45 subpoena, however, Travelers’ 3 17 argument fails for two reasons. First, it has presented virtually no evidence that “Foxconn” has 18 sufficient minimum contacts with this District to make it amenable to service. Likewise, Travelers 19 || offers no evidence that NSG acts as a “general manager” for “Foxconn.” The mere fact that its 20 || office is in a building with a “Foxconn” sign on it — or that the location is identified on Google 21 maps as “Foxconn” — falls far short of demonstrating that either is requirement is satisfied. 22 || IV. CONCLUSIONS 23 For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the subpoenas issued by Travelers to 24 || “Foxconn” cannot be enforced. Therefore, the Court DENIES Travelers’ request. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: May 5, 2021 27 5 ZL c LE”

J PH C. SPERO

28 ief Magistrate Judge