Baker v. Perez et al

Filing 226

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/6/2015 GRANTING 209 Motion to Quash; QUASHING the subpoena for Clark Harrison, M.D. to appear in this matter. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL BAKER,

12

No. 2:09-cv-02757-MCE-KJN

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

PEREZ, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

The Court is in receipt of the Motion to Quash Subpoena (ECF No. 209) filed by

18

Clark Harrison, M.D. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), “[a] subpoena

19

may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only . . . within 100 miles

20

of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person” or,

21

“within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business

22

in person, if the person . . . is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur

23

substantial expense.” “A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a

24

subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a

25

person subject to the subpoena.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). “On timely motion, the court

26

for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i)

27

fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the

28

geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other
1

1

protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue

2

burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A).

3

Dr. Harrison moves to quash the instant subpoena, which required him to appear

4

before this Court on Monday, January 5, 2015, because: (1) he is a citizen of Nevada

5

and is thus not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court; (2) he resides in Reno, Nevada,

6

which is beyond the geographical limit set forth in Rule 45(c); and (3) he was served with

7

the subpoena at approximately 5:00 p.m. on December 30, 2014, just prior to a long

8

holiday weekend and only a few days prior to his requested appearance. Dr. Harrison’s

9

Motion is well taken.

10

First, trial in this case is set to begin on January 12, 2015, not January 5, 2015.

11

Dr. Harrison’s presence was not needed on January 5, and any request for him to

12

appear on that date is moot. More importantly, as a citizen of Nevada and resident of

13

Reno, it does not appear that Dr. Harrison is amenable to this Court’s jurisdiction.

14

Further, it appears he resides beyond the geographical restrictions set by Federal Rules

15

for compelling his attendance. Finally, as described in Dr. Harrison’s motion, service on

16

the eve of a holiday weekend seeking to compel his presence shortly thereafter would

17

surely put an undue burden on a practicing physician. Accordingly, Dr. Harrison’s

18

Motion (ECF No. 209) is GRANTED, and the subpoena for him to appear in this matter is

19

QUASHED.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2015

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2