Sky Financial and Intelligence, LLC v. Cliq, Inc. Case No.: 8:22-cv-01670-ADS United States District Court, C.D. California Filed September 24, 2024 Counsel Oliver D. Griffin, Pro Hac Vice, Peter N. Kessler, Pro Hac Vice, Griffin Partners LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Saundra Kaye Wootton, Kutak Rock LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Steven Alan Heath, Uyen N. Nguyen, Heath Steinbeck, LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for Sky Financial and Intelligence, LLC. James Cannon Huber, Joshua John Herndon, Global Legal Law Firm, Encinitas, CA, for Cliq, Inc. Spaeth, Autumn D., United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF SABIN BURRELL AND PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY (DKT. NO. 92) *1 Before the Court is Defendant Cliq, Inc.'s (“Cliq”) Motion to Compel Deposition of Sabin Burrell and Production of Discovery (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 92.) By this Motion, Cliq seeks to compel deposition testimony and documents from Mr. Burrell, a non-party, based on a subpoena Cliq served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (the “Subpoena”). In addition to Mr. Burrell's deposition, the Subpoena requests “all documents and communications” between him and “any entity that [he] owns” and between him and Ken Haller, Plaintiff Sky Financial Intelligence, LLC's member, “from 2019 through the present.” The Motion is suitable for decision without a hearing. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is DENIED. District courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to permit or deny discovery. Sablan v. Dept. of Finance of Com. Of No. Mariana Islands, 856 F.2d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir. 1988). Rule 45 governs non-party subpoenas for testimony and production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). The scope of discovery allowed under a Rule 45 subpoena is the same as the scope of discovery allowed under Rule 26. Leprino Foods Co. v. Avani Outpatient Surgical Ctr., Inc., 2024 WL 2106730, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2024); Zucchella v. Olympusat, Inc., 2020 WL 13250450, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2020); Much v. Gessesse, 339 F.R.D. 625, 629 (C.D. Cal. 2018). Rule 26 permits discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing relevance. The party opposing discovery then has the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” Alves v. Riverside County, 339 F.R.D. 556, 559 (C.D. Cal. 2021). Here, Cliq fails to meet its initial burden of establishing that the Subpoena seeks relevant information that is proportional to the needs of this case. According to the Motion, Mr. Burrell's only involvement in this case is that he is financially backing Plaintiff. The thrust of Cliq's argument is that, for this reason alone, Cliq needs to depose and gather documents from him “to determine whether he might have any information relevant to this lawsuit.” Cliq cites no authority, and the Court is aware of none, to support its position. A subpoena does not seek relevant information simply because it will determine one way or the other whether the non-party has relevant information. That is not the standard for relevance. Cliq fails to sufficiently articulate how or why Mr. Burrell would have information relevant to the specific claims or defenses in this case. See New Prime, Inc. v. Prime Grp. Holdings LLC, No. CV 23-103 DSF (KSx), 2024 WL 2106734, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2024) (“Any analysis of ‘relevance’ in the context of discovery must be squarely grounded in the specific claims and defenses at issue in the case.”); Nguyen v. Lotus by Johnny Dung Inc., No. CV 17-1317 JVS (JDEx), 2019 WL 3064479, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2019) (“Relevance has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.”). *2 At most, Mr. Burrell's limited connection to this case suggests only that his testimony and documents would be minimally relevant. See, e.g., Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (upholding denial of plaintiff's motion to compel documents from defendant that were only minimally relevant to plaintiff's case). Such minimal relevance is outweighed by the fact that Mr. Burrell is a nonparty and that Cliq, as the movant, has not given reason to believe the information sought is unavailable from a party in this case. See Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood Chemical Co., 649 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1980) (“While discovery is a valuable right and should not be unnecessarily restricted, the ‘necessary’ restriction may be broader when a non-party is the target of discovery.”); Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc., 984 F.2d 422, 424 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“Although Rule 26(b) applies equally to discovery of nonparties, the fact of nonparty status may be considered by the court in weighing the burdens imposed in the circumstances.”); Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406, 409 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“Concern for the unwanted burden thrust upon non-parties is a factor entitled to special weight in evaluating the balance of competing needs in a Rule 45 inquiry.” (cleaned up)); Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 638 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (“Since plaintiffs have not shown they have attempted to obtain these documents from defendant, the Court finds that, at this time, requiring nonparty KSA to produce these documents is an undue burden on nonparty KSA.”). For these reasons, the Motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.