Shoals Technologies Group v. Voltage LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MASCHOFF BRENNAN GILMORE
ISRAELSEN & MAURIEL LLP, a Utah
limited liability partnership,
Non-party in underlying action and
target of subject subpoena,
v.
VOLTAGE, LLC, a North Carolina limited
liability company, and NINGBO
VOLTAGE SMART PRODUCTION CO.,
a Chinese business organization,
Defendants in underlying action and
issuers of subject subpoena.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO TRANSFER
Case No. 2:25-mc-01070-TS-DAO
District Judge Ted Stewart
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
Underlying Action:
Shoals Technologies Group, LLC v. Voltage,
LLC and Ningbo Voltage Smart Production
Co.,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00026-MFU-JLW
(M.D.N.C.)
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Voltage, LLC’s and Ningbo Voltage Smart
Production Co.’s Motion to Transfer.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the
Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
In Shoals Technologies Group, LLC v. Voltage, LLC, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00026-MFU-
JLW (the “Underlying Action”), Shoals Technologies Group, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Shoals”) is
suing Voltage, LLC and Ningbo Voltage Smart Production Co. (“Defendants” or “Voltage”) for
alleged patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
(the “Issuing Court”). Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen & Mauriel LLP (“Maschoff
Brennan” or “Petitioner”) represents Shoals in various patent related issues before the
1 Docket No. 4.
Case 2:25-mc-01070-TS Document 10 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 8

2
International Trade Court (ITC), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other
federal district courts.
In the Underlying Action, Defendants seek to have the asserted patents declared
unenforceable based on the equitable defense of unclean hands and alleged inequitable conduct
by Petitioner. Defendants served a subpoena on nine of Plaintiff’s attorneys, including Maschoff
Brennan and three of its partners, seeking depositions and requests for production of documents.
Plaintiff Shoals moved to quash the depositions and document requests, and limit Voltage’s
discovery to Shoals to non-privileged factual information relevant to the patent-enforcement at
hand.2 After briefing and a hearing on November 12, 2025, the Issuing Court granted in part and
denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to quash and permitted the depositions and written discovery to
proceed in a limited fashion.3 However, as further discussed below, the parties’ interpretations of
that order differ with respect to the extent and scope of permitted depositions and written
discovery.4
After the Issuing Court’s order, Voltage served an amended subpoena on November 14,
2025, and chose to depose two Maschoff Brennan attorneys. However, days before the
depositions were to occur, Voltage dropped the request to depose one of the attorneys and instead
demanded to depose Maschoff Brennan under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).
Voltage’s amended subpoena also included requests for document production.
2 Docket No. 1-3.
3 See Docket No. 1-4, at 8 (“Voltage may depose no more than two of the people whose
depositions Shoals’s Motion to Quash seeks to prevent. Each deposition shall last no more than
three hours and must be completed on or before November 20, 2025. The Court does not limit
the scope of the questions that may be asked at the depositions.”).
4 See Docket No. 8, at 5–6; see also Docket No. 9, at 5–6.
Case 2:25-mc-01070-TS Document 10 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 8

3
Subsequently, on November 23, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash in this Court
(Docket No. 1) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A)(iii)–(iv) seeking to
quash the depositions and document requests, and limit Defendants’ discovery to non-privileged
factual information related to the underlying patent dispute. Petitioner argues the subpoena, as
amended, is onerous, privilege-invading, and exceeds the scope of the ruling made by the Issuing
Court.
On November 25, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Transfer Petitioner’s Motion to
Quash5 back to the Issuing Court and a Motion to Expedite briefing on the Motion to Transfer.6
The Court granted the Motion to Expedite on November 25, 2025.7 Petitioner’s filed their
Response8 on December 2, 2025, and Defendants filed their Reply9 on December 4, 2025. The
matter is now fully briefed and ripe for decision.
II. ANALYSIS
Where, as here, compliance is required in a District that did not issue the subpoena,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 states that the compliance court “may transfer a motion . . . to
the issuing court . . . if the court finds exceptional circumstances.”10 The compliance court must
consider: (1) any “burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas,” (2) whether transfer would
“avoid disrupting the issuing court’s management of the underlying litigation,” and (3) “[whether
the issuing] court has already ruled on issues presented by the motion.”11
5 Docket No. 4.
6 Docket No. 7.
7 Docket No. 6.
8 Docket No. 8
9 Docket No. 9.
10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f).
11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Advisory Committee’s Notes on Rules 2013 Amendment.
Case 2:25-mc-01070-TS Document 10 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 8

4
Courts in this district have found that exceptional circumstances justifying transfer exist
where, as here, the issuing court has already “ruled on issues presented by the motion”12 and
“issued discovery-related orders.”13 Additionally, in this analysis, courts have found the fact “a
jury trial [is] scheduled to . . . commence[]” as “compelling.”14 Accordingly, without addressing
the underlying merits of Petitioner’s Motion to Quash, the Court finds that exceptional
circumstances exist that warrant transfer of the Motion to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina.
First, transfer would properly avoid disrupting the Issuing Court’s management of the
Underlying Action, as parties are adhering to a tight schedule.15 The Issuing Court, in allowing
two depositions to move forward, ordered that they be taken on or before November 30, 2025.
There is a bench trial set to begin February 26, 2026, on the issue of Defendants’ equitable
defenses, with the close of fact discovery on December 31, 2025, and witness lists and deposition
designations due January 16, 2026.16 There is also a jury trial scheduled to begin on August 24,
2026.17 If this Court were to decline to transfer Petitioner’s Motion to Quash, it would likely
cause additional delays in the Underlying Action’s current schedule, including discovery, pretrial,
and trial deadlines. Transferring the Motion would enable the Issuing Court to minimize any
12 Kompan v. Gametime, No. 1:24-MC-00083-TS-JCB, 2024 WL 3358225, at *1 (D.
Utah July 8, 2024).
13 Fortson v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 2:21-MC-00588, 2022 WL 111068, at
*2 (D. Utah Jan. 12, 2022).
14 Id.
15 See Docket No. 4-1.
16 Id.
17 Id.
Case 2:25-mc-01070-TS Document 10 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 8

5
further disruptions to that schedule, including the next steps regarding the now-passed deadline
for depositions.
Second, in the course of the Underlying Action, the Issuing Court has already ruled on
substantially similar discovery disputes and is “in a better position to rule on the [M]otion due to
its familiarity with the full scope of the issues involved.”18 In its Motion to Quash, Shoals asked
the Issuing Court to stop or limit the scope of the depositions and requests for production on the
grounds that the information sought was either irrelevant or privileged. The Issuing Court’s order
permitted Voltage to depose two people whose deposition Shoals’ motion sought to stop,19 and
addressed Shoals’ privilege concerns by ordering that, to the degree the information sought is
privileged, Shoals should produce a privilege log.20 The Issuing Court also held that certain
interrogatories could proceed after finding that such requests were relevant, proportional, not
privileged, and not unduly burdensome.21
Likewise, here, Petitioner seeks to quash Defendants’ amended subpoena, as limited by
the Issuing Court’s ruling, by arguing the information sought is privileged, not relevant or
proportional, and production would be intrusive and onerous. These arguments were already
before the Issuing Court on Shoals’ motion, and the general substance of each motion is
substantially the same, namely, the scope, timing, and relevance of Voltage’s depositions and
written discovery requests.
18 Fortson, 2022 WL 111068, at *2 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
(cleaned up).
19 Docket No. 1-4, at 8.
20 Id. at 7, n.2.
21 Id. at 6–7.
Case 2:25-mc-01070-TS Document 10 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 5
of 8

6
Petitioner argues that there are new and additional issues raised in their Motion that
warrant denial of transfer: Petitioner’s own unique privilege interests, as opposed to Shoals’, and
that Voltage’s amended subpoena exceeds the scope of the Issuing Court’s order. While Petitioner
is correct that, here, the party asserting the privilege is different, the nature of the privilege
argument is the same as Shoals’ and is made in response to a subpoena that the Issuing Court has
already substantially ruled on.
Petitioner also asserts that Defendants’ last-minute attempt to swap one deposition for a
30(b)(6) deposition of Maschoff Brennan is improper and that the subpoena, as amended,
pursues requests for production that the Issuing Court did not authorize.22 To the contrary,
Defendants argue that the Issuing Court’s order expressly allows for the 30(b)(6) deposition of
Maschoff Brennan and broadly permits written discovery, whether those documents are held by
Shoals or Petitioner. The Court views these disputed interpretations as weighing in favor of
transfer. The best court to determine whether Defendants’ attempted deposition of Maschoff
Brennan and additional document requests are properly within the scope of the Issuing Court’s
order, is the Issuing Court. Accordingly, transferring Petitioner’s Motion minimizes the
likelihood of “divergent rulings”23 while ensuring “efficient and uniform resolution.”24
Third, with regard to any burden that transfer would impose, Petitioner makes no
argument on this factor. The Court finds that the risk of burdening the nonparty is low. In
Fortson v. Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, the court found that such risk
was low because the nonparties were “large companies with national, or even a global,
22 Docket No. 1, at 3.
23 Kompan, 2024 WL 3358225, at *2.
24 Fortson, 2022 WL 111068, at *2.
Case 2:25-mc-01070-TS Document 10 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 6
of 8

7
presence.”25 The court also noted that the nonparties had retained well-known law firms that
“litigate lawsuits in many courts across the nation . . . [and] assist in discovery production in
many actions even though their clients may be located in one state and required to produce
documents to an entity in another state.”26 Likewise, here, Petitioner has a national presence and
has experience in litigation and discovery production across different courts and states.
Additionally, Defendants have proposed that once transferred, they could resolve the Motion to
Quash with a teleconference pursuant to Issuing Court’s Local Rule 37.1(b).27
Lastly, Petitioner asks the Court, in the event of transfer, to preserve its objections under
DUCivR 30-2(b) which gives an entity 7 days from being served with a subpoena to serve
written objections. Petitioner argues that Defendants’ last-minute change in deponents would
have deprived Petitioner of the time fixed by the rule to raise those objections. The Court
declines to preserve Petitioner’s objections under DUCivR 30-2(b). Petitioner cites no legal
authority supporting preservation, and declining to do so is consistent with the rationale for
transfer and avoids unnecessary procedural complexity and inconsistent rulings.
IV. CONCLUSION
It is hereby
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Transfer (Docket No. 4) is GRANTED.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Docket No. 9, at 3.
Case 2:25-mc-01070-TS Document 10 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 7
of 8

8
Dated this 16th day of December, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-mc-01070-TS Document 10 Filed 12/16/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 8
of 8