Giddens v. City of Suisun et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/20/2015 GRANTING 29 Motion to Quash; QUASHING the subpoena issued on 12/22/2014 and served on 12/26/2014; NOTIFYING the moving non-parties that they have no obligation to comply with or further respond to said subpoena; VACATING the motion hearing on 29 Motion to Quash set for 2/25/2015. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD GIDDENS, 12 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-0943 AC (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER SUISUN CITY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Non-parties Glen Faison, Foy McNaughton and Daily Republic, Inc. (“movants”), move, 18 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, to quash plaintiff’s subpoena that was issued on December 22, 19 2014 and served on the movants on December 26, 2014. See ECF No. 29. Movants assert that 20 the subpoena is facially defective because it fails to specify a place, date or time for compliance. 21 ECF No. 29 at 2. 22 A motion to quash the subpoena is a “discovery” motion pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. (“Local 23 R.”) 251 (covering motions under Rules 26 through 37 and 45). Accordingly, movants, who are 24 represented by counsel, were required to meet and confer with plaintiff, and to submit a Joint 25 Statement if the matter could not be resolved. Local R. 251(b) & (c). If the meet and confer or 26 Joint Statement requirements could not be met, movants were required to file and serve an 27 affidavit so stating. Local R. 251(e). Movants have not complied with these requirements. 28 The court notes, however, that movants did serve their motion on plaintiff, and that 1 1 plaintiff has submitted no opposition or other response to the motion. The court also notes that 2 the subpoena – which plaintiff filed with the court, see ECF No. 25,1 and which movants attached 3 to their motion – is, in fact, facially defective by failing to specify a “time and place” for 4 compliance. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). 5 Considering all the circumstances, the court concludes that it would be a futile gesture to 6 require movants to re-notice their motion, when the result is already compelled by the record. 7 The court will therefore excuse movants’ failure to comply with the local rules in this one 8 instance, and will grant the motion. Plaintiff and movants are cautioned however, that failure to 9 comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 10 sanctions authorized by the statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local 11 R. 110. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 13 1. Non-parties’ motion to quash (ECF No. 29), is GRANTED. The above-referenced 14 subpoena is QUASHED, and moving non-parties have no obligation to comply or further respond 15 to it; and 16 2. 17 The February 25, 2015 hearing on the motion is VACATED. DATED: February 20, 2015 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff filed the subpoena in violation of the court’s Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. R. 250.5(d). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?