Sandoval et al v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 143

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on June 20, 2014. (nclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 RAFAEL MATEOS-SANDOVAL, and others, 13 14 15 16 Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, and others, Defendants. Case No. 11-cv-05817 TEH (NC) ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AGAINST NONPARTY CROZAT INVESTMENT CORP DBA G & C TOWING Re: Dkt. No. 141 17 18 19 The Court construes plaintiffs’ “Application for Issuance of Order to Show Cause on 20 Why Contempt Citation Should Not Issue” against Crozat Investment Corp dba G & C 21 Towing as a motion for an order compelling production or inspection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 45(d)(2)(B)(i). G & C Towing is not a party to this dispute. Plaintiffs served a document 23 subpoena on G & C Towing under Rule 45. G & C Towing objected to the subpoena and 24 plaintiffs now seek an order compelling enforcement of the subpoena. 25 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1), a party or attorney responsible for issuing a subpoena 26 “must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject 27 to subpoena.” The court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction, which 28 may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fee, on a party who fails to comply with Case No. 11-cv-05817 TEH (NC) ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 1 Rule 45. See, e.g., In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Lit., No. 09-cv2 01967 CW (NC), 2012 WL 629225, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2012) (awarding sanctions 3 against party serving overly broad subpoena on nonparty). 4 Here, the Court questions whether plaintiffs have taken reasonable steps before filing 5 their application for a contempt citation. In particular, have plaintiffs tailored their 6 document demand to the “immediate needs of the case”? Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain 7 Prods., 353 F.3d 792, 813 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding award of sanctions for overly broad 8 subpoena served on nonparty). Have plaintiffs exhausted their efforts to discover these 9 records directly from the defendants? Have plaintiffs considered a partial production? 10 Have plaintiffs considered a phased production? Have plaintiffs proposed to pay or 11 partially pay for expenses incurred by the nonparty in responding to the request? Are the 12 costs of producing the documents demanded proportional to the issues at stake in the case? 13 Plaintiffs must immediately serve this order on G & C Towing and file a proof of 14 service. G & C Towing must respond to the motion to compel by July 11, 2014. Any 15 argument of undue burden by G & C Towing must be supported by specific facts. Reply 16 will be due July 18. A hearing will be held July 30, 2014, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom A in 17 San Francisco, if one is necessary. 18 Amid this briefing, by July 3, plaintiffs must meet and confer with defendants in an 19 effort to determine whether a partial production of a sampling of these records directly from 20 defendants would be a cost-effective and fair approach before demanding from a nonparty 21 discovery for the entire class period as to all putative class members. Plaintiffs also should 22 reflect on whether they have complied with Rule 45 and whether they and their counsel will 23 be sanctioned if this motion gets to a hearing on the present record. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Date: June 20, 2014 26 _________________________ Nathanael M. Cousins United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 Case No. 11-cv-05817 TEH (NC) ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 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?