Town Sky, Inc.

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 BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
TOWN SKY, INC.,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No: 10-30596 TEC
Chapter 7
MEMORANDUM RE MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
On August 9, 2011, Seiko Epson Corporation, Epson America,
Inc., and Epson Portland, Inc. (collectively “Epson”) filed ex
parte applications to take examinations of Seine Entities, Nano
Pacific Corp., Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd., and Ziprint Image
Corp. (collectively the “2004 Entities”) pursuant to Federal Rule
of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004.
On August 11, 2011, Ninestar Technology Co. Ltd. filed
opposition to the applications for Rule 2004 examinations.
On September 14, 2011, the court entered orders granting the
applications for Rule 2004 examinations of the 2004 Entities.
On September 21, 2011, Epson served subpoenas duces tecum on
the 2004 Entities requiring production of documents by October 14,
2011 at 5:00 p.m. and Rule 2004 examinations to be conducted
between October 25, 2011 and November 2, 2011 (the “Subpoenas for
-1-	MEMORANDUM RE MOTION TO QUASH
Signed and Filed: December 23, 2011
________________________________________
THOMAS E. CARLSON
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Entered on Docket
December 27, 2011
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 10-30596 Doc# 141 Filed: 12/23/11 Entered: 12/27/11 10:43:53 Page 1 of
4

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
Rule 2004 Examinations”).
On October 5, 2011, Ninestar Technology Co. Ltd. filed an
objection to the Subpoenas for Rule 2004 Examinations.
On October 13, 2011, the 2004 Entities filed a Motion to Quash
the Subpoenas for Rule 2004 Examinations (the “Motion to Quash”).
On December 19, 2011, the court held a hearing on the Motion
to Quash. 	Diane Stanfield appeared for the 2004 Entities. 	Valerie
Roddy appeared for Epson. 	Reidun Stromsheim appeared as the
chapter 7 trustee. 	Upon due consideration, and for the reasons
stated on the record at the hearing, the court hereby resolves the
Motion to Quash as follows:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this memorandum, the
Motion to Quash should be denied, because the 2004 Entities have
the burden of proof to demonstrate that compliance with the
subpoenas would be unduly burdensome, and because the 2004 Entities
have not demonstrated that Epson’s request for production of
documents was unduly burdensome in comparison to the relevance of
the documents, the need for the documents, the breadth of the
request, the time period covered by the request, and the
particularity of the request. 	See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
Co., 392 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2004).
(2) On or before January 20, 2012, the 2004 Entities shall
produce and permit inspection and copying of all documents listed
in “Attachment A” of the Subpoenas for Rule 2004 Examinations not
subject to a claim of privilege.
(3) At this time, the court declines to determine whether the
2004 Entities have waived any objections regarding privilege, but
the court notes the following: that the limitations period under 11
-2-	MEMORANDUM RE MOTION TO QUASH
Case: 10-30596 Doc# 141 Filed: 12/23/11 Entered: 12/27/11 10:43:53 Page 2 of
4

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
U.S.C. § 546(a) for the trustee to file an avoidance action is
February 22, 2012, that there is no evidence the 2004 Entities have
agreed to toll the limitations period, and that the 2004 Entities
filed the Motion to Quash on October 13, 2011 without setting a
hearing on the matter. 	Under these circumstances, the court orders
that on or before January 20, 2012, the 2004 Entities shall each:
(a) file and serve upon Epson a privilege log identifying all
documents listed in “Attachment A” of the Subpoenas for Rule 2004
Examinations in which a privilege is claimed; and (b) provide the
court with a copy of all documents in which a privilege is claimed
for in camera inspection.
(4) On or before January 31, 2012, the 2004 Entities shall
make each witness identified in the Subpoenas for Rule 2004
Examinations available for an examination, except Jackson Wang.
(5) Jackson Wang will not necessarily be required to be
available for a Rule 2004 examination on or before January 31,
2012, because Epson has not demonstrated that Jackson Wang
regularly transacts business in the United States. 	See Fed. R.
Bankr. Pro. 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). 	Jackson Wang shall appear for a Rule
2004 examination upon his next return to the United States, and
shall advise counsel for Epson at least 72 hours before he next
arrives in the United States of the dates, times, and locations
that he will be available for an examination. 	Upon proof that Mr.
Wang did not provide such notice and make himself available, the
court may find Mr. Wang in contempt.
**END OF MEMORANDUM**
-3-	MEMORANDUM RE MOTION TO QUASH
Case: 10-30596 Doc# 141 Filed: 12/23/11 Entered: 12/27/11 10:43:53 Page 3 of
4

Court Service List
Nano Pacific Corp.
c/o Agent for Service
Kathy Chao
333 Twin Dolphins Drive, Ste 230
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Ninestar Technology Company, Ltd.
c/o Agent for Service
Xiaoquin Ji
17950 East Ajax Circle
City of Industry, CA 91748
Town Sky, Inc.
263 Utah Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Seine Tech (USA) Co. Ltd
c/o Agent for Service
Hannah Hua Ai
19805 Harrison Avenue
Walnut, CA 91789
Ziprint Image Corp.
c/o Agent for Service
19805 Harrison Avenue
Walnut, CA 91789
Case: 10-30596 Doc# 141 Filed: 12/23/11 Entered: 12/27/11 10:43:53 Page 4 of
4