Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SYLABS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY ROSE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00849-SVK
FURTHER DISCOVERY ORDER RE
DKT. 184
Re: Dkt. No. 184
Before the Court is the Parties’ joint submission of three discovery disputes. Dkt. 184.
This Court previously decided the third dispute, granting Defendants’ request for an extension to
complete depositions. See Dkt. 186. The Court now turns to the remaining disputes: (1) Sylabs,
Inc.’s (“Sylabs”) objection to Defendants Rule 45 subpoena to non-party Nikolai Gallo and (2)
Defendants’ request to compel Sylabs to supplement its allegedly deficient responses to CTRL IQ,
Inc.’s (“CIQ”) Interrogatory no. 20, relating to Sylabs’ denial of requests for admission (“RFAs”)
nos. 88-90. The Court determines that this matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument.
Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the Parties’ submissions, the relevant law and the record in
this action, the Court resolves these disputes as follows.
A. 	Sylabs’ Objections to the Gallo Subpoena are Overruled
Sylabs’ objects to the Rule 45 subpoena on procedural grounds for failing to notice all of
the relevant individuals and entities and as irrelevant, overbroad, vague and not proportional to the
needs of the case. Dkt. 184 at 4-5. None of Sylabs’ objections, however, explain how Sylabs will
be harmed, as opposed to the relevant non-Parties (Mr. Gallo and several other non-party entities
and individuals). “In general, a party has no standing to quash a subpoena served upon a third
party unless the party claims a personal right or privilege with respect to the documents requested
in the subpoena.” Botta v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, No. 18-CV-02615-RS (LB), 2018 WL
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 189 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6257459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2018) (collecting cases). Sylabs makes no such claims. To
the extent there are procedural or substantive issues that implicate a non-party’s due process or
other rights, (see Dkt. 184 at 4-5), the non-parties are the ones with standing to challenge the
subpoena. Here, none of the non-parties have objected. Dkt. 184 at 6-7 (explaining how
Defendants and Mr. Gallo met and conferred to “narrow[] the document requests to minimize any
potential burden on Mr. Gallo and to clarify that the requests are limited to non-privileged
materials and expressly exclude personnel records.”).
Accordingly, Sylabs’ objections to the subpoena are OVERRULED.
B. 	Defendants’ Request to Compel Further a Supplemental Response is Denied
CIQ’s Interrogatory no. 20 directed Sylabs: “For each Request For Admission propounded
by Defendants in this Action that You deny, identify all facts for the basis of Your denial.” Dkt.
184-1 at 18. The RFAs at issue, nos. 88-90, asked Sylabs to admit that the three components of its
asserted Fuzzball trade secret (the “concept,” “functions,” and “algorithms, software, & source
code”) were “embodied in open source code” available on GitHub. Id. at 18-40.
Sylabs’ supplemental response is a detailed factual narrative describing its contention that
the Fuzzball trade secrets is embodied in “source code that was improperly opened sourced to
GitHub by defendant Greg Kurtzer on March 26, 2020,” but also in various internal whitepapers
and in other documents. Id. Contrary to Defendants’ contentions, this response is neither “non-
responsive” nor “inconsistent” with the RFAs. Contra Dkt. 184 at 9. Accordingly, Defendants’
request for a further supplemental response is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 23, 2026
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 189 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 2