Beecham et al v. Roseville City School District et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/22/17 ORDERING that Plaintiff Jennifer Vergara's 83 Motion to Quash is GRANTED; the 05/24/17 hearing is VACATED; Plaintiff's 95 Request to Appear Telephonically is DENIED as moot. (Benson, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DUANE BEECHAM, KIMBERLY
BEECHAM, S.Y.B., a minor by and
through her co-guardians ad litem DUANE
BEECHAM and KIMBERLY BEECHAM;
OLIVER VERGARA, JENNIFER
VERGARA, E.V., a minor by and through
his co-guardians ad litem OLIVER
VERGARA and JENNIFER VERGARA;
and M.B., a minor by and through his
guardian ad litem MANOJ
ROSEVILLE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
THERESA VANWAGNER, GEORGE
ROOKS, JERROLD JORGENSEN, and
This case is before the court on plaintiff Jennifer Vergara’s motion to quash subpoenas
served by defendant Theresa Van Wagner on non-parties Catholic Healthcare West and Dignity
Health.1 ECF Nos. 83, 93. As argued by plaintiff Vergara, the subpoenas are untimely and must
therefore be quashed.
The court has determined that oral argument would not materially assist in the
resolution of the motion, and the hearing noticed for May 24, 2017, is hereby vacated. E.D. Cal.
A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order was issued on November 25, 2015, which provides
that all discovery shall be completed by January 23, 2017. ECF No. 27 at 2. The order further
provides that “‘completed’ means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all
depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by
appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been
The subpoenas at issue were not served until April 2017, well after the deadline for
completion of discovery. ECF No. 83-1 at 4-13. Consequently, the subpoenas issued by Van
Wagner are untimely under the court’s scheduling order. See nSight, Inc. v. PeopleSoft, Inc.,
2006 WL 988807, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2006) (“Many courts have found that Rule 45
subpoenas sought after the discovery cut-off are improper attempts to obtain discovery beyond
the discovery period.”); Crayton v. Rochester Medical Corp., 2010 WL 392341 (E.D. Cal. Jan 25,
2010) (granting motion to quash a subpoena that was issued after the non-expert discovery
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Jennifer Vergara’s motion to quash (ECF No. 83) is granted;
2. The May 24, 2017 hearing on plaintiff Vergara’s motion to quash is vacated; and
3. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request to appear telephonically at the May 24 hearing (ECF No.
95) is denied as moot.
DATED: May 22, 2017.
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?