Westport Insurance Corporation v. Northern California Relief

Filing 119

ORDER REGARDING 95 Supplemental Brief. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 04/21/2015. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

WESTPORT INSURANCE
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 14-cv-00312-CRB (KAW)
ORDER REGARDING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

v.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RELIEF,

Re: Dkt. No. 95

Defendant.

13
14

On March 26, 2015, Defendant Northern California Relief filed a motion to compel

15

compliance with several subpoenas issued to non-party law firms. (Def.'s Mot. to Compel, Dkt.

16

No. 77.) On March 31, 2015, this Court terminated the motion because the subpoenas list Los

17

Angeles, CA as the place of compliance. (Mar. 31, 2015 Order at1, Dkt. No. 84.) In its order, the

18

Court instructed Defendant that if it intended to pursue these discovery matters in this forum, it

19

was to file a brief explaining why the relief sought should not be obtained from the United States

20

District Court for the Central District of California. (Id. at 2.) Defendant filed a supplemental

21

brief on April 15, 2015. (Def.'s Supp. Br., Dkt. No. 95.)

22

The certificate of service Defendant filed indicates that he served a copy of the

23

supplemental brief on Plaintiff's counsel, but not on any of the subpoenaed non-party law firms.

24

Accordingly, Defendant shall file a certificate of service showing that the non-party law firms

25

have been served with the supplemental brief and this Court's March 31, 2015 order. This will

26

give the non-party law firms an opportunity to file a responsive brief, which shall be due within 14

27

days of service of the supplemental brief. Defendant may file an optional reply brief within 7 days

28

of the filing of any responsive brief.

1

In the interest of time and conserving judicial resources, Defendant should again consider

2

whether it is appropriate to re-file its motion to compel in the Central District of California to the

3

extent it concerns subpoenas that, on their face, require compliance in that district.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 04/21/2015
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2