Smith et al v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Filing 273

ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White granting 254 Motion to Quash (jswlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM A. SMITH and JOSE LEMUS, Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant. / ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH No. C 07-02126 JSW

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Now before the Court is Defendant's motion to quash subpoenas. Having considered the parties' papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court hereby grants Defendants' motion. Defendant moves to quash the subpoenas served on David McKinnon, John Greer and Roger Gray on the grounds that such witnesses were excluded pursuant to the Court's order granting Defendant's motion in limine No. 4. Plaintiff responds that such witnesses were not included in Defendant's notice of its motion in limine. However, Defendant's notice stated that it was moving to exclude from trial all testimony of witnesses not timely disclosed. More significantly, in the substance of Defendant's motion in limine No. 4, Defendant specifically argued that Plaintiff failed to timely disclose David McKinnon, John /// /// /// /// ///

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Greer, Roger Gray, and Marty Hunt. Therefore, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Defendant's motion to quash subpoenas.1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2009

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In its reply brief, Defendant states that although Plaintiff did not inform Defendant that he intended to maintain a subpoena on Marty Hunt, Plaintiff filed an amended witness list on May 26, 2009 in which he included Marty Hunt. Defendant requests that if a subpoena were served on Marty Hunt, that such subpoena should be quashed for the same reason as the other subpoenas. The Court notes that Defendant's motion in limine No. 4 included Plaintiff's failure to timely disclose Marty Hunt as a witness. Therefore, any subpoena served by Plaintiff on Marty Hunt would be in violation of the Court's order granting Defendant's motion in limine No. 4.
1

2