1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 IN RE SUBPOENAS ISSUED TO Case No. 23-mc-80181-VKD

JEFFREY WILLIAMS AND BRUCE

9 WATROUS JR..

ORDER TRANSFERRING MOTION

10 TO QUASH SUBPOENA; VACATING

HEARING

11 Re: Dkt. No. 1 12

13 Apple Inc., Jeffrey Williams, and Bruce Watrous, Jr. (“Non-Parties”) move to quash 14 subpoenas for the depositions of Mr. Williams and Mr. Watrous served by lead plaintiffs and 15 defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) in the matter In Re Qualcomm Inc. Securities 16 Litigation, 3:17-cv-00121-JO-MSB (S.D. Cal.). See Dkt. No 1-1, Exs. B, C. Both depositions are 17 noticed to occur at locations within the Northern District of California. Id. 18 Rule 45(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[w]hen the court where 19 compliance is required did not issue the subpoena, it may transfer a [motion to quash the 20 subpoena] to the issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena consents or if the court finds 21 exceptional circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). Mr. Williams and Mr. Watrous do not consent 22 to the transfer of the motion to quash. Dkt. No. 28 at 3. Lead plaintiffs and Qualcomm argue that 23 the motion should be transferred to the issuing court because the issuing court has already 24 considered and resolved the parties’ dispute about use of third-party testimony (including Apple 25 witnesses’ testimony) from a prior action and is actively monitoring the parties’ efforts to resolve 26 their dispute about the discovery and admissibility of testimony from Apple witnesses. Dkt. No. 27 1 would be improper because the issuing court is in no way better positioned to decide the motion 2 and no other exceptional circumstances exist. Dkt. No. 28 at 12-14. 3 In the absence of consent, the Court may only transfer the motion to quash to the Southern 4 District of California if lead plaintiffs and Qualcomm demonstrate that exceptional circumstances 5 are present and that those circumstances outweigh the Non-Parties’ interests in obtaining local 6 resolution of their motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, Advisory Committees Notes to 2013 7 Amendments (subsection (f)). Among the factors courts consider in assessing whether exceptional 8 circumstances exists are (1) the complexity, procedural posture, and duration of the underlying 9 litigation; (2) the nature of the issues pending before, or already resolved by, the issuing court; (3) 10 the need to avoid unnecessary duplication; and (4) whether the issuing court is in a better position 11 to decide the motion based on its familiarity with the issues involved. See, e.g., E4 Strategic Sols., 12 Inc. v. Pebble Ltd. P’ship, 2015 WL 12746706, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2015) (discussing non- 13 exhaustive list of considerations); Moon Mountain Farms, LLC v. Rural Community Insurance 14 Company, 301 F.R.D. 426, 429 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (same). 15 While it is clear that the issuing court has not had an opportunity to consider, and has not 16 yet decided, Non-Parties’ objections to the subpoenas served on Mr. Williams and Mr. Watrous, 17 that court has already resolved a motion in limine concerning lead plaintiffs’ use of Apple 18 witnesses’ prior testimony, and the Court agrees with lead plaintiffs and Qualcomm that resolution 19 of Non-Parties’ motion to quash is likely to have implications for the issuing court’s management 20 of this aspect of the underlying litigation. See Dkt. No. 19 at 9-10; Dkt. No. 21 at 8-9. Moreover, 21 given its familiarity with the matters in dispute on the merits of the underlying litigation, the 22 issuing court is in a better position to assess the principal arguments raised in Non-Parties’ motion 23 to quash—i.e. that Messrs. Williams and Watrous do not have unique, non-repetitive, firsthand 24 knowledge of the facts at issue in the case, and that the parties failed to exhaust other less intrusive 25 means of discovery before seeking their depositions. See Dkt. No. 1 at 10-13; Dkt. No. 28 at 12- 26 14. Non-Parties do not claim that a transfer would be burdensome or that it would harm any 27 interest other than their interest in having this dispute heard locally. See Dkt. No. 28 at 12. The 1 motion to quash decided by a court in this District, where the witnesses reside and where Apple is 2 || headquartered. 3 Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 45(f), the Court hereby directs the Clerk of Court to transfer 4 || Non-Parties’ motion to quash and this miscellaneous action to the Southern District of California 5 || for decision by the issuing court in the matter In Re Qualcomm Inc. Securities Litigation, 3:17-cv- 6 || 00121-JO-MSB (S.D. Cal.). The hearing set for August 15, 2023 is vacated. The Clerk of Court 7 is directed to close the file. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: August 11, 2023 10 . 28 □ 11

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

12 United States Magistrate Judge

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28