Beecham et al v. Roseville City School District et al

Filing 102

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

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
HOTTASSERI,

16
17
18
19
20

No. 2:15-cv-1022-KJM-EFB

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
ROSEVILLE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
THERESA VANWAGNER, GEORGE
ROOKS, JERROLD JORGENSEN, and
DOES 1-30,
Defendants.

21
22

This case is before the court on plaintiff Jennifer Vergara’s motion to quash subpoenas
23
served by defendant Theresa Van Wagner on non-parties Catholic Healthcare West and Dignity
24

Health.1 ECF Nos. 83, 93. As argued by plaintiff Vergara, the subpoenas are untimely and must

25
therefore be quashed.
26
27
28

1

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.
L.R. 230(g).
1

1

A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order was issued on November 25, 2015, which provides

2

that all discovery shall be completed by January 23, 2017. ECF No. 27 at 2. The order further

3

provides that “‘completed’ means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all

4

depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by

5

appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been

6

obeyed.” Id.

7

The subpoenas at issue were not served until April 2017, well after the deadline for

8

completion of discovery. ECF No. 83-1 at 4-13. Consequently, the subpoenas issued by Van

9

Wagner are untimely under the court’s scheduling order. See nSight, Inc. v. PeopleSoft, Inc.,

10

2006 WL 988807, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2006) (“Many courts have found that Rule 45

11

subpoenas sought after the discovery cut-off are improper attempts to obtain discovery beyond

12

the discovery period.”); Crayton v. Rochester Medical Corp., 2010 WL 392341 (E.D. Cal. Jan 25,

13

2010) (granting motion to quash a subpoena that was issued after the non-expert discovery

14

deadline).

15

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

16

1. Plaintiff Jennifer Vergara’s motion to quash (ECF No. 83) is granted;

17

2. The May 24, 2017 hearing on plaintiff Vergara’s motion to quash is vacated; and

18

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request to appear telephonically at the May 24 hearing (ECF No.

19

95) is denied as moot.

20

DATED: May 22, 2017.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2