By Eric Schweibenz
On January 9, 2014, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 16 in Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-892).

According to the Order, non-party Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) filed a motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum issued upon application by Complainant Straight Path IP Group, Inc. (“Straight Path”).  Netflix raised two main arguments: (1) that the subpoena was overly broad and unduly burdensome, and (2) that the subpoena sought information that was available from the named respondents in the investigation.  Netflix further argued that discovery responsive to many of the subpoenaed topics had been produced by respondents, thereby mooting the topics as to Netflix. 

ALJ Shaw rejected Netflix’s argument and noted that while Straight Path sought information from Netflix that was available through discovery propounded to the named respondents, this fact did not extinguish Straight Path’s right to seek the same information from Netflix.  Additionally, as to Netflix’s argument that the subpoena was overly broad and unduly burdensome, ALJ Shaw noted that Straight Path had represented in its opposition briefs that it was willing to narrow the scope of information that it sought pursuant to the subpoena.  Accordingly, ALJ Shaw denied Netflix’s motion.