Original URL: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/29/amd_vs_intel_3/
NEC rejects AMD subpoena demands
Chip maker's requests are 'vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome'
AMD vs Intel NEC has hit back at AMD's attempt to subpoena the computer maker to provide evidence in the chip maker's antitrust case against its arch-rival, Intel.
NEC this week filed with the US District Court of Delaware a series of formal objections to the various subpoenas issued earlier this month by AMD lawyers against its subsidiaries NEC USA and NEC Computers.
AMD served a third subpoena on NEC this week, this time at the company's New York City address, court documents seen by The Register reveal.
NEC's objections apply to the first two subpoenas, but it's almost certainly going to object to the third one in the same manner.
The computer maker's primary complaint against the subpoenas is that the documents AMD's lawyers are seeking - they believe the files will provide evidence of Intel's alleged attempts to get PC makers to buy only Intel product and to reject AMD chips - are kept in Japan, outside the jurisdiction of the court.
The subpoenas seek "the preservation of documents located outside of the United States, the subsequent production of which in this matter would not be allowed under foreign law, including but not limited to the law of Japan". Some requested documents "no longer exist or cannot be identified", it adds. Others AMD already has.
The company also claims the subpoenas' requirements go beyond the obligations what US law imposes upon the servee. It also claims they are "vague and overly broad", and "seek materials irrelevant to the subject matter of this litigation".
More to the point, perhaps, they are "unduly burdensome" - NEC wants the court to order AMD to cough up the expenses it will incur in finding and providing the documents the chip maker wants.
In all, NEC makes two dozen general objections to each AMD subpoena, along with 17 objections to specific requests made by the chip maker's lawyers. All of them essentially centre on the complaints mentioned above.
AMD will have an opportunity to object to the objections, but the case's presiding judge, Judge Joseph J Farnan Jr, will in due course have to decide whether to let NEC off the hook, or force AMD to issue a modified subpoena.
Separately, AMD this week issued subpoenas to Gateway and ASI Computer Technologies, a Fremont, California-based distributor that targets VARs, retailers and system builders. ®