Jackson v. Calone, et al.

Filing 76

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/10/17 ORDERING that Plaintiff's MOTIONS to compel compliance with all three MOTIONS regarding the subpoenas served on William Jackson (ECF Nos. 62 , 63 , 64 ) and the one subpoena s erved on V.A. Rodden, Inc. (ECF No. 61 ) are GRANTED. Within 30 days from the date of the 3/9/17 hearing on this matter, William Jackson and V.A. Rodden, Inc. shall produce all documents within their possession or control responsive to each reque st contained in Plaintiff's subpoenas currently at issue. Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions in the form of attorneys' fees she has incurred in obtaining compliance with the subpoenas at issue is DENIED without prejudice to renewal if either third party subject to this order fails to timely comply with it in full. This order resolves the MOTIONS to compel filed at ECF Nos. 55 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 63 , and 64 . (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DOROTHY RODDEN JACKSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-0891-TLN-KJN

v.

ORDER

RICHARD CALONE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On March 9, 2017, this case was before the undersigned to address plaintiff Dorothy

17
18

Rodden Jackson’s (“plaintiff”) motion to compel compliance with three third party subpoenas she

19

served on non-party William Jackson in his various capacities. (ECF Nos. 62, 62, 64.)1 Also

20

before the undersigned was plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with the third party subpoena

21

she served on non-party V.A. Rodden, Inc. (ECF No. 61.) Attorney James Kirby appeared on

22

behalf of plaintiff. Attorney Tyler Kelly appeared on behalf of William Jackson and V.A.

23

Rodden, Inc.

24

////

25

////

26
27
28

1

Specifically, these three motions are directed to William Jackson individually (ECF No. 64), and
in his capacities as Trustee of the Dorothy and Donald Jackson Family Trust (ECF No. 62) and
Trustee of the Dorothy and Donald Jackson Irrevocable Trust (ECF No. 63).
1

1

Based on plaintiff’s motions and the parties’ joint statements regarding these discovery

2

disputes, other relevant filings, and oral arguments, and for the reasons discussed below and on

3

the record during the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. Plaintiff’s motions to compel compliance with all three motions regarding the

5

subpoenas served on William Jackson (ECF Nos. 62, 63, 64) and the one subpoena

6

served on V.A. Rodden, Inc. (ECF No. 61) are GRANTED.

7

2. Within 30 days from the date of the March 9, 2017 hearing on this matter, William

8

Jackson and V.A. Rodden, Inc. shall produce all documents within their possession or

9

control responsive to each request contained in plaintiff’s subpoenas currently at issue.

10

Both third parties shall also identify all documents produced by their Bates-stamp

11

numbers and clearly identify to which request or requests each produced document is

12

responsive. Both third parties are further required to produce to plaintiff a privilege

13

log clearly identifying any responsive documents they have withheld and the basis for

14

their withholding with respect to each withheld document.

15

3. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees she has

16

incurred in obtaining compliance with the subpoenas at issue is DENIED without

17

prejudice to renewal if either third party subject to this order fails to timely comply

18

with it in full. The court declines to order sanctions at this juncture because Federal

19

Rule of Civil Procedure 45 does not contemplate the imposition of such sanctions for a

20

failure to comply with a third party subpoena. Furthermore, while the court could

21

impose the requested sanctions pursuant to its inherent power to punish William

22

Jackson and V.A. Rodden, Inc. for their dilatory conduct with regard to plaintiff’s

23

subpoenas, it finds such sanctions inappropriate at this juncture in light of Federal

24

Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B)(ii)’s directive that the court protect third parties

25

from incurring “significant expense resulting from compliance” with subpoenas.

26

However, both third parties subject to this order are cautioned that if either fails to

27

fully and timely comply with this order, then the court will likely look favorably upon

28

a renewed request for monetary sanctions by plaintiff seeking to recoup both the fees
2

1

she now requests and any additional reasonable fees she is required to incur in

2

attempting to obtain compliance with this order.

3

4. This order resolves the motions to compel filed at ECF Nos. 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63,
and 64.2

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2017

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The motions to compel filed at ECF Nos. 55, 56, 57, and 59 seek the same relief as the amended
motions filed at ECF Nos. 61, 62, 63, and 64 that are currently before the court. While the
amended motions supersede plaintiff’s original motions, plaintiff has not yet sought to withdraw
the original motions. Accordingly, the court resolves those earlier-filed motions through this
order in addition to plaintiff’s amended motions.
3