Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 In re SUBPOENA TO TANDEM Case No.: 26-CV-02479-AGS-BJW DIABETES CARE, INC. in the matter of 14 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 15 INSULET’S MOTION TO COMPEL INSULET CORPORATION, 16 [ECF No. 1] Plaintiff, 17 v. 18 BASIL ALI MOHAMMED SAMARA, 19 Defendant. 20 21 22 This matter is before the Court on Insulet Corporation’s motion to enforce an out- 23 of-district subpoena that it served on Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. ECF No. 1. The 24 underlying case is Insulet Corporation v. Basil Ali Mohammed Samara, 25-CV-03277- 25 KKM-LSG, pending in the Middle District of Florida. This Court held an informal 26 discovery conference on this matter on April 24, 2026. See ECF No. 13. At the end of 27 that conference, the Court ordered the parties to submit letter briefs and set a follow-up 28 informal discovery conference for May 5, 2026. Id.; see also ECF No. 19-4 at 2–7 1 (Tandem’s Letter Brief); ECF No. 21-2 at 2–6 (Insulet’s Letter Brief). The Court 2 provided a tentative order on May 5, 2026. See ECF No. 15. The parties did not 3 unanimously accept the Court’s tentative ruling, and the Court set a briefing schedule. 4 See ECF No. 18. Having considered the briefs, letter briefs, and oral arguments of the 5 parties, the Court now GRANTS IN PART Insulet’s motion to enforce its out-of-district 6 subpoena. 7 BACKGROUND 8 Insulet brought the underlying case in the Middle District of Florida against its 9 former employee, Basil Ali Mohammed Samara, to seek relief following Mr. Samara’s 10 alleged breach of “Confidentiality, Non-Solicit, Non-Compete, and IP Assignment 11 Agreement[s]” through his employment at Tandem, after his departure from Insulet. ECF 12 No. 1-5 (underlying Am. Compl.) at 19–25; ECF No. 1-20 at 6–8. In that case, Magistrate 13 Judge Lindsay S. Griffin granted Insulet’s motion for leave to serve expedited third-party 14 discovery on January 15, 2026. ECF No. 42, Insulet Corp. v. Samara, 25-CV-03277- 15 KKM-LSG (M.D. Fla.). Judge Griffin explained, “The plaintiff demonstrates good cause 16 for serving the subpoenas at Doc. 31-1 [Insulet’s subpoena to Tandem at issue] and 31-2 17 before the parties' Rule 26(f) conference based on the threat of irreparable harm and the 18 need for the discovery[.]” Id. Insulet served its third-party subpoena on Tandem and 19 moved to compel compliance in this district with respect to 12 requests—it has since 20 narrowed the motion to six requests—that Tandem objected to in whole or in part.1 See 21 ECF No. 1-20 at 21 n.8; ECF No. 21 at 4. The following RFPs remain at issue: 22 1) Request No. 1 All documents in Tandem’s possession, custody or control originating from Mr. Samara. 23 24 2) Request No. 2 All documents in Tandem’s possession bearing a label, file name, logo, or watermark including “Insulet 25 26 27 1 In its motion, Insulet referred to “13 [r]equests” in the subpoena that remained in dispute but listed only 12 specific requests for which it sought to compel responses: “Request Nos. 1- 3, 6, and 9-16[.]” 28 1 confidential” or otherwise indicating it is an Insulet-generated document. 2 3 3) Request No. 3 All communications between Mr. Samara and Tandem regarding Insulet. 4 5 4) Request No. 9 All documents and communications reflecting any work product Mr. Samara has produced at Tandem. 6 7 5) Request No. 13 Documents and communications of which Mr. Samara was or is a custodian relating to pharmacy distribution, 8 pharmacy fulfillment, pharmacy operations, pharmacy sales, 9 ASPN, or patient access programs.

10 6) Request No. 15 Communications between Tandem personnel or 11 agents or representatives of Tandem and Mr. Samara or representatives of Mr. Samara, concerning pharmacy sales, 12 ASPN, Insulet, or this litigation. 13 ECF No. 21 at 4; ECF No. 1-18 at 18–21. 14 Tandem objects to these requests on the basis that they (1) constitute a fishing 15 expedition to develop future claims against Tandem, (2) are overbroad and unduly 16 burdensome, (3) seek documents that could be obtained from Mr. Samara, and (4) seek 17 discovery on underlying claims and issues that are improper under California public 18 policy. ECF No. 19 at 10–20; ECF No. 19-4 at 2–6. 19 Insulet addresses each of these arguments and has significantly narrowed its 20 requests at issue, withdrawing certain requests and amending others after meeting and 21 conferring with Tandem. See ECF No. 21 at 4–5 (requesting the Court compel responses 22 for six fewer RFPs than its original motion); ECF No. 1-20 at 21 n.8. 23 LEGAL STANDARD 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(1) permits a party to subpoena a nonparty 25 for documents in its possession, custody, or control. Roe v. City of San Diego, No. 12- 26 CV-0243-W-WVG, 2013 WL 12415915, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2013). Rule 26(b)(1) 27 provides that parties “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is 28 1 relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. 2 R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 3 “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its 4 request satisfies the relevance requirement of Rule 26.” Sanchez Y Martin, S.A. de C.V. v. 5 Dos Amigos, Inc., No. 17-CV-1943-LAB-LL, 2019 WL 581715, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 6 2019). “District courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery 7 purposes.” Am. Claims Mgmt., Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. 18-CV- 8 925 JLS-MDD, 2020 WL 3446345, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 24, 2020) (citing Surfvivor 9 Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005)). The resisting party 10 “has the burden of showing the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of 11 clarifying, explaining and supporting its objections.” Id. (citation and internal quotation 12 marks omitted). 13 DISCUSSION 14 As an initial matter, this Court has jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena at issue. 15 After serving a subpoena, “the serving party may move the court for the district where 16 compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 45(d)(2)(B)(ii); see also Youngevity Int’l, Corp. v. Smith, No. 16-CV-704 BTM-JLB, 18 2017 WL 6418961, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2017). Insulet’s subpoena to Tandem 19 requires compliance in this district, and Tandem does not dispute that this Court is proper 20 for determination of whether to require compliance. ECF No. 1-18 at 2, 23; see ECF No. 21 19 at 13 (“Tandem is a California-headquartered company; the compliance court sits in 22 California[.]”). 23 A. Relevance of the Requested Documents 24 Insulet has met its threshold burden to show that the documents sought by this 25 subpoena are relevant under Rule 26(b). Insulet alleges that Mr. Samara was an “integral 26 member of the team leading [the] effort” that developed Insulet’s pharmacy sales 27 channel. ECF No. 1-20 at 10. And through that role Mr. Samara “had access to Insulet’s 28 most confidential leadership discussions[.]” Id. at 11. Insulet brought suit against Mr. 1 Samara alleging he breached “contractual non-disclosure and non-compete obligations 2 owed to [Insulet]” through his work at Tandem. ECF No. 1-5 (Am. Compl.) at 2–3. The 3 complaint states (1) a claim for “Breach of the Protective Covenant” and (2) a claim for 4 “Breach of the Confidentiality Provisions.” Id. at 19–22. For requested discovery to be 5 relevant, it must relate to a claim at issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2); Am. Claims Mgmt., 6 Inc., 2020 WL 3446345, at *2; see also Pizzuto v. Tewalt, 136 F.4th 855, 858 (9th Cir. 7 2025) (acknowledging and explaining the 2015 change to discovery relevance under Rule 8 26). 9 The document requests at issue appear tailored to seek information related to Mr. 10 Samara’s alleged breach or to determine the extent of such breach. In summary, the 11 requests seek documents (1) originating from Mr. Samara, (2) originating from Insulet, 12 (3) containing communications between Mr. Samara and Tandem regarding Insulet, 13 (4) reflecting Mr. Samara’s work product, (5) relating to Mr. Samara’s purported 14 expertise and for which he is a custodian, and (6) containing communications between 15 Tandem personnel or representatives of Mr. Samara concerning Mr. Samara’s purported 16 expertise or the underlying case in the Middle District of Florida. See ECF No. 21 at 4; 17 ECF No. 1-18 at 18–21. The Court finds these requests to seek, at a minimum, documents 18 directly related to Insulet’s claims for Mr. Samara’s alleged breach of agreements 19 through his employment at Tandem. See ECF No. 1-5 (underlying Am. Compl.) at 19– 20 25; ECF No. 1-20 at 6–8. 21 Because Insulet has established the relevance of its requests, Tandem has the 22 burden to show the discovery should be prohibited. See Dos Amigos, Inc., 2019 WL 23 581715, at *3. Tandem first argues that Insulet’s requests constitute an improper fishing 24 expedition designed to develop future claims against Tandem. ECF No. 19 at 10–13. In 25 making this argument, Tandem quotes Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc.: “District courts need not 26 condone the use of discovery to engage in fishing expeditions.” 364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th 27 Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). That point is inapposite. The Ninth Circuit made that statement 28 in the context of finding that employers should be prevented from using discovery as a 1 tool to search for potential new defenses that could limit their liability from Title VII 2 plaintiffs. See id. While it may be possible that Tandem faces risk of future liability for a 3 “not-yet-pled tortious interference theory[,]” as it argues, neither case law nor the Federal 4 Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party should be prohibited from obtaining 5 discovery relevant to its claims because of a nonparty’s claimed risk of liability for 6 possible claims against it. ECF No. 19 at 11. The Court is not persuaded that relevant 7 discovery should be prohibited here for this reason. 8 B. The Breadth and Burden of the Discovery Sought 9 Tandem objects on the basis that the requests are overbroad. ECF No. 19 at 14–17. 10 The Court finds the disputed requests sufficiently limited to documents related to 11 Insulet’s claims. Specifically, the requests are tailored to either a sufficiently narrow, 12 related topic (e.g., “Request No. 13[:] Documents and communications of which Mr. 13 Samara was or is a custodian relating to pharmacy distribution . . . or patient access 14 programs.”) or to communications between individuals or entities related to the claims 15 (e.g., “Request No. 3[:] All communications between Mr. Samara and Tandem regarding 16 Insulet.”). ECF No. 1-18 at 18–21. Moreover, the requests at issue are necessarily time 17 limited. Mr. Samara left Insulet on July 11, 2025. ECF No. 1-20 at 6; ECF No. 1-9 at 5. 18 Although Insulet confirmed that Mr. Samara had communicated with a Tandem 19 employee throughout his final six months of employment at Insulet, it could not 20 determine the date that Mr. Samara’s employment at Tandem began. See ECF No. 1-20 at 21 13–15. According to Mr. Samara, Tandem then terminated him on December 10, 2025. 22 ECF No. 1-15 at 2; ECF No. 1-20 at 15. Therefore, Mr. Samara’s employment at Tandem 23 lasted for, at most, a period of approximately five months—July 12, 2025, to December 24 10, 2025. Even assuming some responsive documents or communications exist from 25 before or after Mr. Samara’s employment, the length of his employment seems to 26 meaningfully limit the time in which responsive documents could have been created, and 27 thus, the breadth of the requests. Cf. Healy v. Milliman, Inc., No. C20-1473-JCC, 2021 28 1 WL 1946223, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 14, 2021) (finding RFPs that were relevant to be 2 overbroad because they were not time-limited). 3 Tandem also objects that the requests are unduly burdensome. ECF No. 19 at 18– 4 20. It claims that “Tandem stands to incur in excess of $800,000 in additional fees and 5 costs[]” responding to Insulet’s requests. Id. at 21 (emphasis in original). Insulet counters 6 that “[e]ven using Tandem’s estimates for the same hours and levels of additional review 7 for a universe of 60,000—even though, as noted above, those estimates are likely higher 8 than realistic—the cost of review should be less than $150,000.” ECF No. 21 at 10. 9 “Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) requires the district court to shift a non-party's costs of 10 compliance with a subpoena, if those costs are significant.” Bolivar v. Netradyne, Inc., 11 No. 3:25-CV-1722-RBM-KSC, 2026 WL 406039, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2026) 12 (quoting Legal Voice v. Stormans Inc., 738 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2013)). Tandem 13 may, after producing responsive documents, submit to this Court documents detailing the 14 cost of its efforts for evaluation by the Court for cost shifting. 15 Further, even if the party resisting discovery shows that Electronically Stored 16 Information (ESI) is “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost, . . . the 17 court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows 18 good cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B); Kilbourne v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 14-CV- 19 0984-MMA-BGS, 2015 WL 10943827, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2015). Insulet argues 20 that “[s]ince Mr. Samara has been terminated, he no longer has access to his Tandem 21 accounts and is therefore unable to provide the requested information necessary to 22 resolve a critical issue at the heart of this case.” ECF No. 1-20 at 24; see ECF No. 21 at 23 7–8. Thus, it avers that “non-party discovery from Tandem is therefore necessary as the 24 only route[.]” Id. Tandem asserts that the documents Insulet seeks are available from Mr. 25 Samara, but it offers no explanation as to how that could be so given that he presumably 26 lost access to his work accounts upon his termination.. See ECF No. 19 at 17–18. The 27 Court finds that even if Tandem’s compliance requires a significant expense, Insulet has 28 shown good cause to warrant enforcing Tandem’s compliance. C. California Public Policy 2 Last, Tandem claims the requests seek discovery on underlying claims and issues 3 are improper under California public policy against enforcing noncompete 4 ||agreements. ECF No. 19 at 21. As Insulet correctly argues, this Court is merely tasked 5 || with determining whether to enforce a nonparty subpoena, not whether to enforce a 6 ||noncompete agreement. The authority governing this determination is Federal Rules of 7 || Civil Procedure 26 and 45. See, e.g., Arjun Vasan v. Checkmate.com Inc., No. 25-CV- 8 ||00765-MEMF-ASX, 2025 WL 4227218, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2025) (enforcing in part 9 ||a nonparty subpoena for an out-of-district case that had an underlying claim breach of a 10 ||noncompete). The Court is not persuaded by Tandem’s public policy argument. 11 || CONCLUSION 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Insulet’s motion with 13 ||respect to the six requests that remain in dispute and ORDERS Tandem to produce 14 || documents responsive to Insulet’s Requests for Production 1-3, 9, 13, and 15 within 30 15 || days of this Order. The Court DENIES AS MOOT Insulet’s motion as to Requests 6, 16 || 10-12, 14, and 16, because it no longer moves to compel responses to those requests. 17 If Tandem seeks to shift the costs of compliance, it may file a motion to shift the 18 || costs incurred, after producing responsive documents. Any such motion must include 19 || sufficient detail for the Court to determine whether Tandem’s expenses were reasonable 20 || and warrant cost-shifting. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: June 12, 2026. 23 Ho an J. White United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28