OEM-Tech, Co. v. Video Gaming Technologies Inc
Filing
117
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE SUBPOENAS (DKT. NO. 107). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 1/12/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. C10-4368 RS (JSC)
CHARLES R. ESTES d.b.a. OEM-Tech,
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO SERVE SUBPOENAS
(DKT. NO. 107)
Plaintiff,
v.
VIDEO GAMING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.
/
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve third-party
18
subpoenas. (Dkt. No. 107.) Plaintiff’s motion for leave is DENIED. By stipulation and
19
order filed October 24, 2011 (Dkt. No. 54) the deadline for completion of non-expert
20
discovery was continued four weeks to December 28, 2011. Thus, at best, the last day to
21
serve third-party subpoenas was December 28, 2011; indeed, since December 28, 2011 was
22
the deadline for completion of such discovery, December 28, 2011 was actually the last day
23
for compliance with any third-party subpoenas. See Civil L.R. 37-3 (“a ‘discovery cut-off’ is
24
the date by which all responses to written discovery are due).
25
Plaintiff’s assertion that he met and conferred with Defendant regarding the subpoenas
26
prior to December 28, 2011 is of no moment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 does not
27
require the agreement of an opposing party before a subpoena may be served, it merely
28
requires that “notice” be given to the opposing party before service. Fed. R. Civ. P.
1
45(b)(1). Similarly, that the deadline for filing motions to compel was one week after
2
December 28, 2011, see Civil L.R. 37-3, is also irrelevant. Plaintiff is not seeking to compel
3
compliance with a discovery request that was timely made; instead, he is seeking leave to
4
make a new discovery request upon a third party after the discovery cut-off.
5
Further, the Court does not find good cause for extending the discovery deadline to
6
allow service of the subpoenas. The Court finds that Plaintiff could have served the
7
subpoenas in a timely manner.
8
9
Finally, the Court notes that the parties have been unable to comply with the Court’s
standing order requiring the submission of joint discovery letter briefs. Accordingly, any
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
further discovery issues/motions must be raised by noticed motion in accordance with Civil
11
Local Rule 7-1 and 37-2, should there be any motion which can be timely brought. The
12
parties shall no longer communicate with the Court by letter.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: January 12, 2012
16
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?