For the foregoing reasons, Liberty Mutual moves this Court to quash Watts’ subpoena to testify pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A) & (B) and Liberty Mutual seeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(A) enjoining Watts from seeking any further discovery from Liberty Mutual in the underlying litigation. Also, Liberty Mutual seeks an order imposing sanctions against Watts and in favor of Liberty Mutual in the amount of attorneys’ fees, costs, and other amounts this Court deems appropriate pursuant to Fed.R. Civ. P. 26(c)(3), 37(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. STUTMAN, P.C.

[¶] Even assuming that the defendant has standing to raise this objection to the subpoena, a majority of the courts that have dealt directly with the 100-mile issue have held that such a subpoena should be enforced. Id., 264 F.R.D. at 19-20 (citations omitted); see also Ice Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2007 WL 1364984, at *3 (D. Kan. May 9, 2007) (quoting Stewart v. Mitchell Transport, 2002 WL 1558210, at *3 (D. Kan. July 8, 2002) (declining to quash the subpoena at issue because the subpoenas did not require any of the entities served to travel in violation of Rule 45’s 100-mile limitation)); Tubar v. Clift, 2007 WL 214260 (W.D. Wash. January 25, 2007) (holding that even though Rule 45(b)(2) requires service within 100 miles of the place of production or copying of records, a subpoena served in New Jersey for the production of documents in Washington nonetheless was enforced because, pursuant to Rule 45(c)(2)(A), no individual was required to escort the requested records personally); Jett v. Penner, 2007 WL 127790 (E.D. Cal. January 12, 2007) (a request for a file was not quashed, although the file was located more than 100 miles away because the request was only for the file itself and there was no requirement that a nonparty travel more than 100 miles in order to supply it). Case 1:10-cv-00873-RMU Document 17 Filed 11/09/10 Page 12 of 18 9 2. Doe Defendants have not, and cannot, demonstrate any undue burden on them.

Id., 264 F.R.D. at 19-20 (citations omitted); see also Ice Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2007 WL 1364984, at *3 (D. Kan. May 9, 2007) (quoting Stewart v. Mitchell Transport, 2002 WL 1558210, at *3 (D. Kan. July 8, 2002) (declining to quash the subpoena at issue because the subpoenas did not require any of the entities served to travel in violation of Rule 45’s 100-mile limitation)); Tubar v. Clift, 2007 WL 214260 (W.D. Wash. January 25, 2007) (holding that even though Rule 45(b)(2) requires service within 100 miles of the place of production or copying of records, a subpoena served in New Jersey for the production of documents in Washington nonetheless was enforced because, pursuant to Rule 45(c)(2)(A), no individual was required to escort the requested records personally); Jett v. Penner, 2007 WL 127790 (E.D. Cal. January 12, 2007) (a request for a file was not quashed, although the file was located more than 100 miles away because the request was only for the file itself and there was no requirement that a nonparty travel more than 100 miles in order to supply it). Overall, Plaintiff has shown good cause for obtaining information related to the Doe Defendants from the non-party ISPs, and the moving Doe Defendants have not shown any justified reason to quash any subpoena or dismiss a particular Doe Defendant at this time.

Id., 264 F.R.D. at 19-20 (citations omitted); see also Ice Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2007 WL 1364984, at *3 (D. Kan. May 9, 2007) (quoting Stewart v. Mitchell Transport, 2002 WL 1558210, at *3 (D. Kan. July 8, 2002) (declining to quash the subpoena at issue because the subpoenas did not require any of the entities served to travel in violation of Rule 45’s 100-mile limitation)); Tubar v. Clift, 2007 WL 214260 (W.D. Wash. January 25, 2007) (holding that even though Rule 45(b)(2) requires service within 100 miles of the place of production or copying of records, a subpoena served in New Jersey for the production of documents in Washington nonetheless was enforced because, pursuant to Rule 45(c)(2)(A), no individual was required to escort the requested records personally); Jett v. Penner, 2007 WL 127790 (E.D. Cal. January 12, 2007) (a request for a file was not quashed, although the file was located more than 100 miles away because the request was only for the file itself and there was no requirement that a nonparty travel more than 100 miles in order to supply it). Overall, Plaintiff has shown good cause for obtaining information related to the Doe Defendants from the non-party ISPs, and the moving Doe Defendants have not shown any justified reason to quash any subpoena or dismiss a particular Doe Defendant at this time.

Aurora cannot overcome the presumption that its subpoena is inappropriate and should be quashed and a protective order should issue. Further, having no legitimate purpose for its subpoena, Aurora should bear Plaintiffs’ costs of this Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). DATE: September 27, 2012 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP By: /s/ Thomas E. Loeser Steve W. Berman (Pro Hac Vice) Thomas E. Loeser (Cal. Bar No. 202724) 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com Andrew Oldham (144287) LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW OLDHAM 901 Campisi Way, Suite 248 Campbell, CA 95008 Telephone: (888) 842-4930 Case4:10-cv-03118-SBA Document122 Filed09/27/12 Page13 of 14

ng that the defendant has standing to raise this objection to the subpoena, a majority of the courts that have dealt directly with the 100-mile issue have held that such a subpoena should be enforced. Id., 264 F.R.D. at 19-20 (citations omitted); see also Ice Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2007 WL 1364984, at *3 (D. Kan. May 9, 2007) (quoting Stewart v. Mitchell Transport, 2002 WL 1558210, at *3 (D. Kan. July 8, 2002) (declining to quash the subpoena at issue because the subpoenas did not require any of the entities served to travel in violation of Rule 45’s 100-mile limitation)); Tubar v. Clift, 2007 WL 214260 9 Case 1:11-cv-00529-RBW Document 56 Filed 09/15/11 Page 11 of 14 (W.D. Wash. January 25, 2007) (holding that even though Rule 45(b)(2) requires service within 100 miles of the place of production or copying of records, a subpoena served in New Jersey for the production of documents in Washington nonetheless was enforced because, pursuant to Rule 45(c)(2)(A), no individual was required to escort the requested records personally); Jett v. Penner, 2007 WL 127790 (E.D. Cal. January 12, 2007) (a request for a file was not quashed, although the file was located more than 100 miles away because the request was only for the file itself and there was no requirement that a nonparty travel more than 100 miles in order to supply it). Overall, Plaintiff has shown good cause for obtaining information related to the Doe Defendants from the non-party ISPs, and the moving Doe Defendants have not shown any justified reason to quash any subpoena or dismiss at this time.

ng that the defendant has standing to raise this objection to the subpoena, a majority of the courts that have dealt directly with the 100-mile issue have held that such a subpoena should be enforced. Id., 264 F.R.D. at 19-20 (citations omitted); see also Ice Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2007 WL 1364984, at *3 (D. Kan. May 9, 2007) (quoting Stewart v. Mitchell Transport, 2002 WL 1558210, at *3 (D. Kan. July 8, 2002) (declining to quash the subpoena at issue because the subpoenas did not require any of the entities served to travel in violation of Rule 45’s 100-mile limitation)); Tubar v. Clift, 2007 WL 214260 9 Case 1:11-cv-00529-RBW Document 18 Filed 06/20/11 Page 11 of 14 (W.D. Wash. January 25, 2007) (holding that even though Rule 45(b)(2) requires service within 100 miles of the place of production or copying of records, a subpoena served in New Jersey for the production of documents in Washington nonetheless was enforced because, pursuant to Rule 45(c)(2)(A), no individual was required to escort the requested records personally); Jett v. Penner, 2007 WL 127790 (E.D. Cal. January 12, 2007) (a request for a file was not quashed, although the file was located more than 100 miles away because the request was only for the file itself and there was no requirement that a nonparty travel more than 100 miles in order to supply it). Overall, Plaintiff has shown good cause for obtaining information related to the Doe Defendants from the non-party ISPs, and the moving Doe Defendant has not shown any justified reason to quash any subpoena or dismiss at this time.

Box 883, 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20044 Tel: (202) 514-3146 Fax: (202) 318-7593 Email: rupa.bhattacharyya@usdoj.gov Dated: March 21, 2005 Case 1:05-mc-00110-RBW Document 2 Filed 03/21/05 Page 13 of 14 - 14 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 21, 2004, a copy of the foregoing Memorandum of the U.s. Department of State in Opposition Motion to Compel Compliance with a Rule 45 Subpoena, was served upon counsel of record by electronic mail, facsimile, and first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Tara M. Lee, Esq. Cooley Godward LLP One Freedom Square Reston Town Center 11951 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190-5656 ____/s/ Rupa Bhattacharyya__________ RUPA BHATTACHARYYA (VA# 38877) Senior Trial Counsel Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division United States Department of Justice P.O. Box 883, 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20044 Tel: (202) 514-3146 Fax: (202) 318-7593 Email: rupa.bhattacharyya@usdoj.

6 The Sony subpoena contained 55 Requests, six of which demanded information related to the Sony PlayStation and Bookman products and were, therefore, inapplicable to PENAC (or even Royal Philips). Case4:01-cv-01640-SBA Document449 Filed03/26/04 Page14 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 NON-PARTY PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(1) C01-1640 SBA (MEJ) HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE As relief, non-party PENAC requests that the subpoena be quashed in its entirety and that non- party PENAC be awarded its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in responding to the subpoena. As a result of the subpoena and Messrs. Lambert and Wesenberg’s failure to take reasonable steps, non- party PENAC has been forced to: 1) obtain local counsel in the Southern District of New York; 2) file briefs in the Southern District resisting the subpoena; 3) attend a hearing in the Southern District; 4) file its letter brief with this Court; and 5) file the present motion.

Patton Boggs further objects that this Request is overly broad and unduly Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 579 Filed 09/07/12 Page 181 of 190 178 burdensome because it requires Patton Boggs to search its entire active litigation file, without subject-matter or date limitation. Taken on its face, the magnitude of documents sought in the Request, if read literally, and the burden and expense imposed by the collection, review, and production efforts will be extraordinary and thus conflicts with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). Patton Boggs also objects to this Request to the extent it calls for documents within the possession, custody, and control of—or available or accessible to—any other individuals or entities other than Patton Boggs.