Turek et al v. Stanford University Medical Center et al

Filing 134

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' LETTER BRIEF. Signed by Judge Alsup on 10/9/2013. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ANTHONY and LESLIE TUREK, as
successors in interest to the Estate of
Michael Turek, deceased, and in their
individual capacities,

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS’
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
LETTER BRIEF

Plaintiffs,

12
13

No. C 12-00444 WHA

v.

16

STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL
CENTER, JUSTIN BIRNBAUM, M.D.
MICHAEL GADBOW, M.D.,
KATHERINE IESEN, M.D., JOY
RUSMINTRATIP, M.D., and CLAIRE
TURCHI, M.D.,

17

Defendants.

14
15

/

18
19

In a letter brief filed on October 8 (Dkt. No. 133), defendants request an order to quash a

20

Rule 45 subpoena issued by plaintiffs on October 4. The subpoena is directed to the custodian of

21

records for Stanford University Medical Center and commands the production of various AMA

22

policies and procedures. Among other reasons, defendants argue that the subpoena is untimely

23

— as the close of discovery has long passed — and that the subpoena directly contradicts the

24

rulings given at the October 7 pretrial conference. As such, plaintiffs shall file a response to

25

defendants’ letter brief, addressing in particular the aforementioned arguments. Plaintiffs’

26

response is due by NOON ON OCTOBER 10.

27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE