Optrics Inc v. Barracuda Networks Inc
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:17-cv-04977
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Optrics Inc. v. Barracuda Networks Inc., Judge Hixson quashed a subpoena seeking to depose Barracuda’s lead trial counsel.
Optrics Inc. could not depose Barracuda Networks Inc.’s lead trial counsel, and Barracuda obtained an order quashing the subpoena; the scheduled telephonic hearing was also vacated.
What happened
Optrics Inc. v. Barracuda Networks Inc. involved Optrics’s attempt to question Barracuda’s lead trial counsel, Karineh Khachatourian, about conversations concerning the alleged purchase of CudaMail by j2 and about a call with Optrics.
The court applied a three-part test for questioning opposing counsel: the information must be unavailable by other means, relevant and not protected, and important to preparing the case. The court found that j2 and Optrics could testify about their own conversations, and that discussions between Khachatourian and Barracuda were protected by attorney work-product and attorney-client privilege.
The court vacated the scheduled hearing and quashed Optrics’s deposition subpoena. The order was entered by Judge Thomas S. Hixson.
The detailed version
- Optrics Inc v. Barracuda Networks Inc · No. 3:17-cv-04977
- Richard Seeborg
- Oct. 25, 2019
Background
Optrics attempted to serve a deposition subpoena on Karineh Khachatourian, Barracuda’s lead trial counsel. Barracuda moved to quash the subpoena. The opinion states that the parties set aside service-of-process issues and agreed on the legal standard for deposing opposing counsel.
Legal standard
Under the three-part test cited by the court, the party seeking to depose opposing counsel must show that: (1) the requested information cannot be obtained by another means; (2) the information is relevant and not privileged; and (3) the information is crucial to preparing the case.
Court’s analysis
Optrics wanted to ask Khachatourian about telephone conversations with j2 concerning j2’s alleged purchase of CudaMail, a call with Optrics about the same issues, what Khachatourian and Barracuda knew about the CudaMail issues, and what she learned from the conversations.
The court held that the content of the conversations with j2 and Optrics failed the first part of the test because j2 and Optrics were parties to those conversations and could testify about what was said. The court held that questions about what Khachatourian discussed with Barracuda failed the second part because those discussions were protected by the attorney work-product doctrine and attorney-client privilege.
Disposition
The court vacated the October 31, 2019 telephonic hearing and quashed Optrics’s deposition subpoena. The order was signed by Thomas S. Hixson, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.