Ray v. Innovative Surgeries Investigative Solutions Holdings, LLC

Filing 24

ORDER IMPOSING TEMPORARY STAY ON SERVICE OF SUBPOENA AND REFERRING DISCOVERY DISPUTES TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/4/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012)

**E-filed 4/4/12**

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9

12
13

No. C 11-6603 RS

CINDY RAY,

ORDER IMPOSING TEMPORARY
STAY ON SERVICE OF SUBPOENA
AND REFERRING DISCOVERY
DISPUTES TO A MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

v.
INNOVATIVE SURGERIES
INVESTIGATIVE SOLUTIONS
HOLDINGS, LLC,

14
15

Defendant.
____________________________________/

16
17

Plaintiff has filed what she terms an “ex parte motion” to quash a subpoena that she asserts

18

defendant intends to serve on her former employer immediately following the initial Case

19

Management Conference in this action, which is scheduled to be held on April 5, 2012.1 Without

20

deciding the ultimate issue of whether service of such a subpoena at this or some future time would

21

be appropriate, it appears that plaintiff’s arguments should at least be heard, and that there is no

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

This district uses the term “ex parte” in its strict sense to refer to a “motion filed without notice to
opposing party.” Civil Local Rule 7-10. Ex parte motions are permissible only where authorized by
statute, Federal Rule, local rule or Standing Order. Id. To justify what she believed was an ex parte
motion, plaintiff quotes inapplicable language from the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which
she misidentifies as a provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because plaintiff filed her
motion through the ECF system, however, it was automatically served on defendant and was
therefore not an ex parte motion within the meaning of the local rules. When a party seeks relief on
an expedited basis, the appropriate procedure is to accompany the motion with a request under Civil
Local Rule 6-3 to shorten time. Plaintiff’s “ex parte” motion will be deemed to be such a request in
this instance.
1

1

particular urgency requiring immediate service of the subpoena. Accordingly, good cause

2

appearing, it is ordered that defendant shall refrain from serving the subpoena pending further order.

3

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 72-1, the Court hereby refers plaintiff’s motion and any

4

further discovery disputes in this matter to a randomly assigned Magistrate Judge for resolution.

5

Plaintiff shall re-notice the motion for hearing before the Magistrate Judge pursuant to the local

6

rules and any standing orders or procedures of the Magistrate Judge upon assignment.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: 4/4/12

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2