Securities And Exchange Commission v. Obioha et al

Filing 23

Filed in Error. Please ignore.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 23-mc-80253-LB
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: ECF No. 1

ELON MUSK,
Defendant.
The SEC has applied for an order compelling compliance with its administrative subpoena.

18

(Appl. – ECF No. 1.) The court’s inquiry is narrow: the issues are (1) whether Congress has

19

granted the authority to investigate, (2) whether the procedural requirements have been followed,

20

and (3) whether the evidence is relevant and material to the investigation. SEC v. Obioha, No. 12-

21

cv-80109-WHA, 2012 WL 4889286, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2012) (quoting EEOC v. Fed. Exp.

22

Corp., 558 F.3d 842, 848 (9th Cir. 2009).

23

In the Obioha case, the SEC filed proof of service on the docket. The court did not see service

24

filed here and assumes that the SEC will file proof of service to flush out any objections.

25

Ordinarily objections are due two weeks after service. The court then can issue a formal order.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: October 7, 2023

28
ORDER – No. 23-mc-80253-LB

______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge