`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HILGERS GRABEN PLLC
`MICHAEL MERRIMAN (SBN 234663)
`mmerriman@hilgersgraben.com
`655 West Broadway, Suite 900
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Telephone: 619-369-6232
`Facsimile: 402-413-1880
`
`TRENT TANNER (pro hac vice)
`ttanner@hilgersgraben.com
`575 Fallbrook Blvd. Suite 202
`Lincoln, NE 68521
`Telephone: 402-260-1391
`Facsimile: 402-413-1880
`
`JENNIFER ERICKSON BAAK (pro hac vice
`pending)
`jericksonbaak@hilgersgraben.com
`600 17th Street, Suite 2800
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: 773-407-5502
`Facsimile: 402-413-1880
`
`Attorneys for Movant Gregory Lucier
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document 374-1 Filed 02/09/22 PageID.34603 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`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
`
`
`
`SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`NUVASIVE, INC., a Delaware
`
`Case No. 18-cv-00347-MDD-CAB
`corporation,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALPHATEC HOLDINGS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation, and ALPHATEC
`SPINE, INC., a California corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TRENTON
`D. TANNER IN SUPPORT OF
`MOVANT GREGORY
`LUCIER’S EX PARTE
`APPLICATION FOR
`SHORTENING OF TIME
`RELATED TO MOTION TO
`QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Trenton D. Tanner, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney at Hilgers Graben, PLLC, counsel for Movant, Gregory
`
`Lucier. I submit this Declaration in support of Movant Gregory Lucier’s Ex Parte
`
`Application for Shortening of Time related to Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena
`
`(“Application”). I have personal knowledge of the following facts and, if called as a
`
`witness, I could and would testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`I have met and conferred with counsel for Alphatec Holdings, Inc. and
`
`Alphatec Spine, Inc. (collectively, “Alphatec”), regarding the relief sought in the
`
`Application and the relief sought in Movant Gregory Lucier’s Motion to Quash Trial
`
`Subpoena. Specifically, I exchanged emails with Alphatec’s counsel related to this
`
`relief on January 31, February 1, February 3, February 7, and February 8, 2022. I
`
`also spoke with Alphatec’s counsel about these issues on February 2, February 8,
`
`and February 9, 2022.
`
`3.
`
`In the course of these meet-and-confers, I informed Alphatec’s counsel
`
`that Mr. Lucier intended to move to quash the subpoena that Alphatec served on Mr.
`
`Lucier on January 4, 2022, for three reasons: Alphatec failed to properly serve a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF TRENTON D. TANNER
`IN SUPPORT OF EXPARTE APPLICATION
`
`
`
`Case
`
`18-cv-00347-CAB-MDD Document374-1 Filed 02/09/22 PagelD.34604 Page 3 of 3
`
`ComAHNDBWnBPWYYPN
`
`oOpoPwKHPDHPKNKNHNORRBRmBRBeReReeeaoytDBABPWDNOKHODODOWonDWAHHPWDNYYKOC
`
`witness fee and mileage allowance on Mr. Lucieras required by Rule 45(b); the
`
`subpoenaviolates the geographic limitations of Rule 45(c); and the subpoena
`
`imposes an undue burden on Mr. Lucier.
`
`4.
`
`On February 9, 2022, Alphatec’s counsel agreed to provide the witness
`
`fee and mileage allowanceandto file its Response in opposition to Mr. Lucier’s
`
`Motion to Quash within two weeks after Mr. Lucierfiled his Motion to Quash,in
`
`exchange for Mr. Lucier’s agreement to waive the requirement that Alphatec re-
`
`serve the subpoena concurrently with the witness fee and mileage allowance.
`
`5.
`
` Alphatec’s counsel has also agreed that Mr. Lucier does not need to
`
`appearto testify until at least March 7, 2022, even though the subpoena commands
`
`his appearance on February 28, 2022.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`Executed this 9" day of February 2022.
`
` eevad
`
`Trenton D. Tanner
`
`DECLARATION OF TRENTON D. TANNER
`IN SUPPORT OF EXPARTE APPLICATION
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
