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)

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