Dhillon v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 31

ORDER VACATING IN PART SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 ORDER AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

HARMEET DHILLON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. C 13-1465 SI
ORDER VACATING IN PART
SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 ORDER AND
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

v.
DOES 1 -10,
Defendants.

/

16
17

In an order filed September 25, 2013, the Court denied plaintiff’s then-unoppposed

18

administrative motion seeking to take limited discovery on third party Michael Schroeder, and granted

19

plaintiff’s administrative motions seeking leave to serve a subpoena on third party Google. Since the

20

filing of that order, plaintiff has filed a letter seeking reconsideration of the denial of the motion with

21

respect to Mr. Schroeder, and Mr. Schroeder and defendant “Doe 1” have filed a combined opposition

22

to the administrative motions. The combined opposition states that Mr. Schroeder and Doe 1 were not

23

served with the administrative motions, and it appears from their filing that they are unaware of the

24

September 25, 2013 order.

25

In order for the Court to consider Doe 1’s arguments and for plaintiff to have the opportunity

26

to respond, the Court hereby VACATES the portion of the September 25, 2013 order permitting the

27

issuance of a subpoena on Google. If the subpoena has already issued to Google, plaintiff is ordered

28

to immediately contact Google and rescind the subpoena, and to serve a copy of this order on Google.

1

The Court hereby AMENDS the September 25, 2013 order to set a briefing schedule on plaintiff’s

2

administrative motion regarding the proposed subpoena to Google. Plaintiff shall file a reply brief no

3

later than October 18, 2013, and the Court will hold a hearing on the motion on November 7, 2013 at

4

10:00 a.m.1
With respect to Mr. Schroeder, the Court’s September 25, 2013 order denied plaintiff’s motion

6

because the proposed subpoena did not comply with Rule 45. Plaintiff proposed to serve a subpoena

7

on Schroeder at 1100 W. Town and Country Rd., Ste. 1400, Orange, CA 92868, and the subpoena

8

directed Schroeder to produce documents to plaintiff’s counsel at 177 Post St., Suite 700, San Francisco,

9

CA 94108. Rule 45 directs that “a subpoena for production or inspection shall issue from the court for

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

the district in which the production or inspection is to be made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2) (emphasis

11

added). Rule 45 also imposes territorial limits upon the area in which a subpoena may be served,

12

directing inter alia, that “a subpoena may be served at any place within the district of the court by which

13

it is issued, or at any place without the district that is within 100 miles of the place of the deposition,

14

hearing, trial, production, or inspection specified in the subpoena . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2).

15

The Court denied plaintiff’s motion with respect to Mr. Schroeder because the subpoena would

16

be served outside the Northern District of California and would direct Schroeder to produce documents

17

in San Francisco, which is more than 100 miles from the address at which the subpoena would be

18

served. “[N]onparties cannot be required to produce documents at a location more than 100 miles from

19

their home or business.” Nieman v. LinkedIn Corp., No. CV 12–80258 PSG, 2013 WL 685203, at *2

20

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2013); Miller v. Holzmann, 471 F. Supp. 2d 119, 121 (D.D.C. 2007) (“[T]he

21

limitation in Rule 45 unequivocally applies both to attending a deposition to testify and to being

22

required to produce documents at a distance more than 100 miles from one’s home.”); see also Wright

23

& Miller: Federal Practice & Procedure § 2454, Service of a Subpoena (2013); Hon. William W.

24

Schwarzer, Hon. A. Wallace Tashima & James M. Wagstaffe, Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial §

25

11:2250 (2013). The Court reiterates to plaintiff that if plaintiff wishes to serve a subpoena on Mr.

26
27
28

1

If counsel for Doe 1 wishes to appear by telephone, counsel may do so after requesting and
receiving permission from the Court.
2

1

Schroeder, plaintiff should seek a subpoena directly from the Central District of California that directs

2

production of documents in Orange County. See id. at §§ 11:2262-11:2270.2

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
Dated: October 2, 2013
6

SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2

26
27
28

Plaintiff provides no authority for the proposition that the Northern District of California can
issue a subpoena from the Central District of California (or any other district). It has since come to the
Court’s attention that the proposed subpoena for Google was to be issued by the Eastern District of
California; the Court had mistakenly believed that plaintiff sought a subpoena from the Northern District
of California for Google. In any event, the Court has vacated the portion of the September 25, 2013
order regarding the Google subpoena, and the parties can address the propriety of the Google subpoena
in further briefing.
3