Beckway v. DeShong et al

Filing 276

ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH Signed by Judge Thelton Henderson: denying re 264 Motion to Quash; denying re 267 Motion to Quash. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 BRENT BECKWAY, 6 7 8 9 Plaintiff, v. DEPUTY PAUL DESHONG, et al., NO. C07-5072 TEH ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH Defendants. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 On or about January 6, 2012, Plaintiff Brent Beckway (“Plaintiff” or “Beckway”) 12 served Defendants trial subpoenas seeking the appearance of Defendants at trial, as well as 13 requesting production of ten categories of Defendants’ personal financial records. 14 Defendants filed a motion to quash the subpoenas on January 10, 2012, arguing that the 15 financial documents constituted misuse of a trial subpoena and were barred by Federal Rule 16 of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 45(c)(3)(iii), which requires the quashing of any subpoena that 17 requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter. Having carefully considered the 18 arguments of counsel, the Court now DENIES the motion, for the reasons set forth below. 19 Financial records are properly subject to disclosure for the purpose of evaluating the 20 amount of punitive damages that should be awarded. See Cit4y of Newport v. Fact Concerts, 21 Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 267 (1981). They are therefore not subject to absolute privacy protection 22 as the Defendants suggest. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. California 23 Psychiatric Transitions, 258 F.R.D. 391, 395 (E.D. Cal., 2009). They are therefore not 24 barred from being subject to subpoena by Rule 45(c)(3)(iii). 25 Previous attempts by the Plaintiff to access this information having been rebuffed by 26 Defendants as premature, and the Plaintiffs having indicated, in their moving papers, their 27 amenability to a compromise on this issue, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendants Ward and 28 DeShong to bring all of the requested materials with them when they appear at trial. Should 1 Plaintiff establish, and the Court find, that Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages, the 2 Defendants shall be prepared to turn over the materials sought by the subpoena, subject to an 3 appropriate protective order. Absent a finding by the Court that the Plaintiff is entitled to 4 punitive damages, the documents in question will not be disclosed. Nevertheless, Defendants 5 Ward and DeShong are to consider themselves subject to the Plaintiff’s subpoena, and are to 6 arrive before this Court prepared with the requested materials. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Dated: 1/17/2012 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?