United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Katherine Menendez United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on the Motion to Quash Lundstrom
Subpoena filed by Plaintiff Entrust DataCard Corporation
(“Entrust”) and Movant Robert Lundstrom. ECF No.
2. As an alternative to quashing the subpoena, Entrust and
Mr. Lundstrom ask that the motion be transferred to the
Middle District of Florida, where the litigation underlying
the subpoena is currently pending. See Entrust DataCard
Corp. v. Atlantic Zeiser, et al.
(“Entrust Florida Case”), No.
3:17-cv-110-J-39MCR (M.D. Fl. Jan. 30, 2017). Atlantic
Zeiser, GMBH, Atlantic Zeiser, Inc., and Innovatime Industrie
SARL (collectively “Defendants”), oppose the
motion to quash the subpoena and argue that it would be
improper to further delay Mr. Lundstrom's deposition by
transferring this matter to the Florida court. The Court
heard argument in this matter on January 7, 2019, and has
communicated with United States Magistrate Judge Monte C.
Richardson of the Middle District of Florida regarding this
litigation. For the reasons discussed below, Entrust and Mr.
Lundstrom's motion is denied and the Court orders that
Mr. Lundstrom's deposition must be taken within
twenty-one days from the date of this Order.
underlying Florida litigation, Entrust alleges that the
Defendants are infringing two of Entrust's patents for
“card personalization machines, which are the machines
used to put cardholder information on cards such as credit or
identity cards when the cards are issued.” See
Pl.'s Mem. at 3, ECF No. 3. Mr. Lundstrom is one of the
inventors for these patents. The Defendants represent that
they have been seeking Mr. Lundstrom's deposition since
September 2018. Defs.' Opp'n at 15, ECF No. 10. The
Defendants originally served Entrust a notice to depose Mr.
Lundstrom pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30 on Entrust, but Mr.
Lundstrom's deposition was not taken despite being
discussed several times. Hartley Decl., Ex. 8, ECF No. 11.
The defendants then served a Rule 45 subpoena on Mr.
Lundstrom on December 3, 2018, commanding him to
appear for a December 17th deposition near his residence in
Minnesota. Entrust and Mr. Lundstrom's motion to quash
45: Motions to Quash
Pursuant to Rule 45, a federal court in a district where
compliance with a non-party subpoena is required must quash
or modify the subpoena that:
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical
limits specified in Rule 45(c);
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected
matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). The court may quash a
subpoena that requires disclosure of a trade secret or other
confidential business information or of an unretained
expert's opinion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(B).
also provides that a federal court may transfer a
subpoena-related motion to the district where the underlying
litigation is pending. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f).
Specifically, it states:
When the court where compliance is required did not issue the
subpoena, it may transfer a motion under this rule to the
issuing court if the person subject to the subpoena
consents or if the court finds exceptional circumstances.