Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Enforcement motion denied for subpoenas issued to settlement objectors in telescope antitrust litigation, (Mar 11, 2026)

By Kenneth H. Ryesky, M.B.A., J.D.

Four amateur astronomers who had objected to the class action settlement refused to cooperate with class counsel after appealing district court's final approval of settlement agreement.

The federal district court in San Jose, California has denied a motion to enforce subpoenas issued to four class members who had filed objections to a class action settlement that was ultimately approved by the district court and who had appealed that approval to the Ninth Circuit. The settlement resolved antitrust claims brought in a long-running litigation alleging collusion among telescope manufacturers to unlawfully fix prices, rig bids, and allocate the market for consumer telescopes. The magistrate judge did not have sufficient information to determine whether the district court had jurisdiction to order such enforcement, and also found that the district was not the proper venue for enforcing the subpoenas. The motion was denied without prejudice (In Re: Telescopes Antitrust Litigation, No. 5:20-cv-03639-EJD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026)).

Background. In 2020, some astronomy hobbyists filed a class action lawsuit against a group of telescope manufacturers and distributors, alleging market-dominating collusion in the pricing and distribution of recreational telescopes. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs (IPPs) reached a settlement agreement with the defendants, which was approved by the court in a judgment entered on April 11, 2025 following a fairness hearing. On May 5, 2025, four IPP class individuals who had filed objections to the proposed settlement (collectively, the Objectors) filed a joint notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Counsel for the IPP class attempted to obtain information from the Objectors, but the informal inquiries were not responded to. IPP counsel then issued subpoenas to the Objectors for documents and deposition testimony, but service of the subpoenas was problematic; three of the Objectors did not reside at their addresses of record where service was attempted, and the fourth Objector insisted that while the subpoena was served upon the registered agent of a corporate entity of which she was CEO, the subpoena was addressed to her personally, and she thus claimed to have not been properly served with the subpoena.

IPP counsel moved for a court order to compel the Objectors to respond to the subpoenas. The Objectors, each of whom had possession of an actual subpoena document, opposed that motion and continued to resist cooperation.

Jurisdiction-pendency of an appeal. The magistrate judge denied the IPPs' motion to compel the Objectors to respond to the subpoenas, finding that more information was required in order to determine whether jurisdiction was vested in the court to grant the motion. Here, the DPPs characterized the subpoenas as "discovery concerning whether Objectors are members of the class, the dates and locations of their telescope purchases, the factual bases for their objections to the settlement, and whether the objections are fraudulent or asserted in bad faith." The magistrate judge could not determine, from the information before her, what aspects of the case were implicated in the appeal and thereby divested the court of jurisdiction over those aspects during the pendency of the appeal. The magistrate noted that "all pending motions before the presiding judge have been resolved, and there is no indication that any other proceedings before the district court are contemplated during the pendency of the appeal."

Subpoena enforcement-venue. The magistrate judge found that she apparently lacked the authority to compel compliance with the issued subpoenas. Here, compliance with the subpoenas would be required in Puerto Rico, Florida, West Virginia, and in Sacramento, California, which is in the Eastern District of California and not in the Northern District in which the litigation is pending. Subpoenas in federal court litigation can only be enforced by the federal court of the district in which compliance with the subpoena would be performed. The court here is not authorized to effect the transfer to itself.

The Case is No. 5:20-cv-03639-EJD.

Judge: DeMarchi, V.

Attorneys: Adam J. Zapala (Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP) for Sigurd Murphy. Christopher Lynn Frost (Frost LLP) for Celestron Acquisition, LLC.

Companies: Celestron Acquisition, LLC

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews