Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. v. Soukup

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/13/12 ORDERING that Defendant's MOTION TO QUASH 1 is DENIED. Discovery obtained pursuant to the subpoena shall be used solely for purposes of the action pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, case no. 3:11-cv-0336-K. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC.,

11
Plaintiff,

No. 2:12-mc-0053 LKK CKD

12
vs.
13
KIMBERLEY SOUKUP,
14
Defendant.
15

ORDER
/

16

Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to quash a subpoena directed to

17

the custodian of records for Facebook, Inc.1 The motion was not noticed for hearing. Having

18

reviewed the record, the court has determined that oral argument would not be of material

19

assistance in determining the pending motion. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). Upon review of the

20

briefs in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS

21

FOLLOWS:

22

In the underlying action, plaintiff asserts that defendant misappropriated plaintiff’s

23

trade secret, proprietary, and confidential information. In deposition, defendant has admitted that

24
25
26

1

The underlying action is pending in the Northern District of Texas, case no. 3:11-cv0336-K. The subpoena at issue on the pending motion was issued by the Eastern District of
California and thus the motion to quash has been appropriately noticed in this District.
1

1

she e-mailed the subject documents to her personal e-mail account, posted comments on

2

Facebook advising others to take their employers’ documents home, and threw her personal

3

computer in the trash after plaintiff had specifically requested that defendant preserve such

4

evidence. Under the circumstances presented here, the subpoena at issue is neither overbroad nor

5

does it intrude improperly into private matters. The information sought by means of the

6

subpoena at issue may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1. Defendant’s motion to quash (dkt. no. 1) is denied.

9

2. Discovery obtained pursuant to the subpoena shall be used solely for purposes

10

of the action pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, case no.

11

3:11-cv-0336-K.

12

Dated: August 13, 2012

13

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2