Doe v. County of San Mateo et al

Filing 79

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [Docket No. 56] (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. SAN MATEO COUNTY OF, Defendant. / JANE DOE, Plaintiff, No. C 08-02541 SI ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [Docket No. 56] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant James Mason filed a letter brief on October 20, 2008 requesting a protective order. [Docket No. 56] Plaintiff replied on October 22, 2008. The Court GRANTS defendant's motion. Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a subpoena on the Verizon Wireless Compliance Unit on October 3, 2008. The subpoena commands Verizon to produce all cellular telephone bills, all call details, text message details, and records for defendant's telephone services with Verizon Wireless from August 1, 2004 until October, 2008. Defendant argues that the records subpoenaed are neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that their production is likely to subject defendant to annoyance and embarrassment. The Court agrees that the subpoena covers a time period substantially longer than that relevant to the facts alleged in plaintiff's complaint. In addition, defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, which is scheduled to be heard on December 12, 2008 and may narrow the scope of this case. Defendant's motion for a protective order is GRANTED and plaintiff's request for production is STAYED until the court rules on defendant's motion to dismiss.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Dated: 10/28/08 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge IT IS SO ORDERED.