NEC objects, objects and objects again to AMD subpoena

NEC USA has filed a 23 page objection to an AMD subpoena which requests it retains documents and email relating to microprocessors it bought from Intel.

The objection is a reply to the subpoena AMD served on NEC in the middle of the month.

We have the NEC objections in PDF format here, as part of our overall coverage of this case.

Its grounds for the objections include the subpoena being unauthorised by the federal rules of civil procedure, because it seeks the preservation of documents outside of the USA, particularly in Japan which NEC US lawyers say would violate Japanese law.

It also said that the AMD subpoena is vague and overly broad as well as being unduly burdensome, and significantly and unduly expensive. AMD should give NEC USA enough money to cover the costs and other expenses of retaining documents.

It also said that AMD wants documents preserved that would breach the privileged attorney-client relationship. It objects to the individuals AMD names in the subpoena because only two of the named people work for NEC USA.

It objects to the definition of microprocessor, to the definition of financial inducement, it objects to the definition of "your company" in the subpoena. And after 24 of these general objections, it starts on specific objections numbering 17.

In short, AMD, it seems that NEC USA does not want to comply with this subpoena, we'd say. µ

* MEANWHILE ABOUT 30 or so individuals, companies and organisations have had their class actions in California associated with the AMD Intel case. Intel is seeking to have all the different class actions in California and elsewhere in the USA pulled into one specific action, but needs permission to do so from a judicial board which doesn't meet for some weeks yet.

See Also
Full AMD and Intel trial coverage, reports, dockets and the like