Shopnomix v. Ganti

Background

Shopnomix, LLC sued its former senior vice president, Vinay Ganti, alleging that, several months after his employment ended, he used a passkey to access Shopnomix’s Google Drive, downloaded files containing trade secrets and other confidential business information, and disclosed some information to competitors, including Monay, LLC.

On April 29, 2026, Shopnomix served Monay, a nonparty, with a subpoena seeking documents concerning communications between Ganti and former and current Monay executives. Monay moved to quash the subpoena. It argued that the subpoena sought privileged or confidential materials, imposed an undue burden, was overbroad, requested irrelevant documents, and designated an improper place of compliance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. Shopnomix opposed the motion but did not address the improper-place-of-compliance argument.

Legal standard

Rule 45 generally permits a subpoena commanding production of documents or electronically stored information only at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, works, or regularly conducts in-person business. Rule 45 also requires the court for the district where compliance is required to quash or modify a subpoena that does not comply with those geographic limits or that requires disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected matter.

The court stated that, for a nonparty limited liability company, the place of compliance is at or within 100 miles of the company’s headquarters or principal place of business, not at a location unilaterally selected by the subpoenaing party.

Ruling

The subpoena designated Wilmington, Delaware, as the place of compliance. Although Monay was incorporated in Delaware, the opinion states that Monay did not maintain offices, employ persons, or regularly transact business in person within 100 miles of Wilmington. The court therefore concluded that the designated place of compliance was improper and that the proper place was a court within 100 miles of Monay’s headquarters in California.

The court granted Monay’s motion to quash and quashed the subpoena without prejudice to Shopnomix serving a renewed subpoena that complies with Rule 45. The court encouraged Shopnomix, Monay, and the other parties to meet and confer about the scope of any renewed subpoena. Judge Katharine H. Parker directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 37.