Upon timely motion, pursuant to Rule 45, a court must quash or modify a subpoena if the subpoena “(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden.”19 A court may, on motion, quash or modify a subpoena if it requires, “(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or (ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s study that was not requested by a party.”20

Corp., No. 1:17-CV-00693-WJM- SKC, 2020 WL 7212169, at *2 (D. Colo. Feb. 6, 2020) (“Objections unrelated to a claim of privilege or privacy are not proper bases upon which a party may quash a third-party subpoena.”); Howard v. Segway, Inc., No. 11-CV-688-GKF-PJC, 2012 WL 2923230, at *2 (N.D. Okla. July 18, 2012) (same); Richards v. Convergys Corp., No. 2:05-CV-00790-DAK, 2:05-CV- 00812-DAK, 2007 WL 474012, at *1 (D. Utah Feb. 6, 2007) (same).

Mr. Heuberger has standing to move to quash or modify the subpoenas directed at Shopify, BigCommerce, and WooCommerce because he has established a personal right or privilege with respect to the documents and communications concerning the Other Apps.

Case 2:22-cv-00291-TS-JCB Document 396 Filed 01/26/24 PageID.16933 Page 10 of 13 also relevant to Route’s false advertising claims under the Lanham Act.34 Furthermore, Route asserts that the Other Apps and Navidium are both marketed under the “brand” Ecom Propeller.

Previously cited cases in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit have made clear that objections unrelated to any right of privilege are improper when challenging a third- party subpoena.

After a description of the claims brought in the New York Action and the terms of its settlement,

The plaintiffs alleged as well that the Dealer Defendants pressured Markit and ISDA not to

grant any licenses that allowed CDS to trade via a central limit

settlement class plaintiffs agreed to release all CDS cis

The claims by the New Mexico plaintiffs against the Banks arising from their conduct occurring prior to June 30, 2014 are enjoined as set forth in the accompanying order, Dated: New York, New York January 26, 2024 po fhMeatA