Dish Network L.L.C v. Asia TV USA Ltd.

Background

Dish Network L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. sued Asia TV USA Ltd. and other defendants. Dish alleged, among other things, that Asia TV breached its contractual obligations by renewing an agreement allowing Yupp TV USA, Inc. to distribute Asia TV programming after Dish said that distribution was supposed to stop. Dish also asserted copyright claims.

YuppTV previously intervened in the case but was dismissed as a party on April 30, 2021. Dish later served YuppTV with a deposition subpoena seeking testimony from Udaynandan Reddy Padi. The subpoena covered YuppTV’s relationships and communications with Asia TV and Asia Today Ltd., the renewal and termination of the YuppTV Agreement, payments and unpaid amounts, possible settlements or payment arrangements, and information in an earlier declaration by Reddy.

YuppTV’s Arguments

YuppTV moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 to quash, meaning cancel, the subpoena and under Rule 26(c) for a protective order. It argued that the subpoena was served too late, that the information was already known to Dish or available from the defendants, that Reddy’s declarations already supplied the information, that the topics were overbroad, and that the information was irrelevant.

Dish argued that the requested testimony was relevant and that YuppTV had not shown the strong justification needed to cancel a deposition subpoena. Dish also offered to accommodate Reddy’s schedule, including through a remote deposition or a limited extension of the discovery deadline.

Court’s Analysis

The court first determined that YuppTV had filed the motion in the wrong court because subpoena motions ordinarily must be filed in the federal district where compliance is required—in this case, the Northern District of Georgia. The court concluded that YuppTV waived that requirement by choosing to file in the Southern District of New York.

The court rejected YuppTV’s relevance argument. It explained that relevance for a nonparty subpoena is a relatively low threshold. The requested testimony could help determine whether Asia TV believed Dish had approved the renewed agreement or developed that position later. The court also found that payment information could be relevant to Dish’s possible request for the profits from copyright infringement.

The court rejected the arguments that the information was available from other sources or already appeared in Reddy’s declarations. It reasoned that Dish could seek additional evidence from YuppTV where it had reason to question the reliability or consistency of information from the defendants. The court also noted that the earlier declaration could not have addressed certain later events, including license fees connected to an agreement that was not terminated until November 30, 2019.

The court also rejected YuppTV’s argument that the subpoena was served too late. Two months remained in fact discovery when Dish first asked whether counsel would accept service, and seven weeks remained when Dish served YuppTV’s registered agent. Dish had offered to accommodate Reddy after learning that he would be out of the country.

Ruling

The court found topics 1 and 2 unnecessary because Dish acknowledged that the relationships covered by those topics were addressed more specifically in topics 9 through 12. It therefore excised topics 1 and 2. The court found topics 3 through 12 sufficiently clear, relevant, and proportional, and declined to narrow them further.

YuppTV’s motion was GRANTED to the extent that topics 1 and 2 were excised from the subpoena, and otherwise DENIED. The court also noted that Dish had received a two-week extension for the limited purpose of taking YuppTV’s deposition, which could occur in Atlanta, another agreed location, or remotely.