ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

BARBARA JACOBS ROTHSTEIN, District Judge.

The Court is in receipt of the Joint Motion to Quash Subpoenas filed by third parties Robert Lee Hagelshaw and Balamurugan Selvarajan ("Respondents"). That motion asks the Court to quash two subpoenas, directed at Respondents, seeking documents and things related to prior litigation involving Respondents and, allegedly, the patents-in-suit, related 3D software design projects, and other matters that may be relevant to this litigation.

The limits of discovery, including subpoenas directed at third parties, are governed by federal rule. Those rules contemplate liberal discovery, to be allowed in the interests of justice and the fair and complete resolution of disputes. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) ("Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action."). Relevancy for the purposes of Rule 26 is broadly construed. See, e.g., Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc., 984 F.2d 422, 424 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Critically here, the Respondents are not unrelated non-parties, strangers to the subject matter of this litigation. According to documents submitted by Defendant, they are Plaintiff vPersonalize's CEO (Selvarajan), and CFO, General Counsel, and Secretary (Hagelshaw); and both serve as corporate directors of the Plaintiff. Moreover, Respondents have failed to meet the burden, which is theirs, of demonstrating that the documents and things being sought are beyond the scope of this litigation, are unduly burdensome, or are irrelevant. The Court therefore DENIES the Joint Motion to Quash.