Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 3, 2020

Proofpoint, Inc. v. Vade Secure, Incorporated

Judge
Maxine Chesney
Docket
3:19-cv-04238
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Proofpoint v. Vade Secure, Magistrate Judge Illman ordered GitHub to comply with Proofpoint’s subpoena and produce responsive documents.

Who this affects

Nonparty GitHub Inc., which was ordered to respond to the subpoena and produce all responsive documents without objections; the plaintiffs obtained the requested order compelling compliance.

What happened

In Proofpoint, Inc. v. Vade Secure, Incorporated, the plaintiffs asked the court to compel nonparty GitHub Inc. to comply with a subpoena for documents. They had tried four times to resolve the issue with GitHub before filing the motion, and GitHub did not oppose it.

The court explained that objections to this type of subpoena must be served by the earlier of the compliance deadline or 14 days after service. Because GitHub did not timely object, the court held that GitHub had waived its objections.

Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman granted the motion to compel, vacated the scheduled hearing, and ordered GitHub to respond to the subpoena and produce all responsive documents without objections by August 10, 2020.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Proofpoint, Inc. v. Vade Secure, Incorporated · No. 3:19-cv-04238
Judge
Maxine Chesney
Date
Aug. 3, 2020

Background

The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel nonparty GitHub Inc. to comply with a document subpoena issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena was served on February 18, 2020. Before filing the motion, the plaintiffs attempted to meet and confer with GitHub on four occasions. GitHub did not file an opposition.

The court determined that the motion could be decided without oral argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for August 6, 2020.

Reasoning

Rule 45 requires objections to a subpoena seeking documents or tangible things to be served by the earlier of the time set for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. The court stated that failing to serve timely objections waives all grounds for objection. Because GitHub failed to file objections within the required period, the court concluded that GitHub had waived its objections.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to compel. It ordered GitHub to comply with Rule 45, respond to the subpoena, and produce all responsive documents without objections in accordance with the court’s prior order, no later than August 10, 2020. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.