Evans v. Gilmore et al

Filing 50

DISCOVERY ORDER re 49 Letter filed by City of Richmond. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 5/20/2016. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TERALYN RENEA EVANS,

Case No. 15-cv-01772-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

PRESTON GILMORE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER COMPELLING NON-PARTY
CHARLES EVANS II TO PRODUCE
RECORDS IN RESPONSE TO
SUBPOENA
Re: Dkt. No. 49

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On May 19, 2016, Defendant City of Richmond filed a request for a telephonic conference

14

regarding non-party Charles Evans II’s failure to comply with a subpoena issued by this Court.

15

Dkt. No. 49. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs discovery of non-parties by subpoena.

16

Rule 45 provides that a party may command a non-party to produce designated documents,

17

electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person’s possession, custody, or

18

control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). The scope of discovery through a subpoena under Rule

19

45 is the same as the scope of discovery permitted under Rule 26(b). Beinin v. Ctr. for Study of

20

Popular Culture, 2007 WL 832962, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2007) (citing Truswal Sys. Corp. v.

21

Hydro Air Eng’g Inc., 813 F.2d 1207, 1209-12 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Under Rule 26, a party may

22

obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

23

defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)

24

To determine whether a subpoena should be enforced, the Court is guided by Rule 45,

25

which protects a subpoenaed party from “undue burden,” and Rule 26, which provides that the

26

Court must limit discovery if “the discovery sought . . . can be obtained from some other source

27

that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive” or if “the burden or expense of the

28

proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.

1

26(b)(2)(C)(i). A party or lawyer responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena therefore must

2

take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the

3

subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). In turn, the Court “must protect a person who is neither a

4

party nor a party’s officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

5

45(d)(2)(B)(ii). The Court may modify or quash a subpoena that subjects a person to undue

6

burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv). On a Rule 45 motion to quash a subpoena, the moving

7

party has the burden of persuasion, but the party issuing the subpoena must demonstrate that the

8

discovery sought is relevant. EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2012 WL

9

1980361, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2012).

10

Having reviewed Defendant’s request and the information sought in the subpoena

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

(attached as Exhibit A to Defendant’s request), the Court finds it seeks information that is both

12

relevant to Defendant’s defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Further, Defendant has

13

taken reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on Mr. Evans. See Murphy

14

Decl. ¶¶ 3-6. Finally, although he was served with the subpoena over five months ago, Mr. Evans

15

has not sought to quash or modify the subpoena. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Mr. Evans to

16

produce the records requested in the subpoena by June 30, 2016.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

Dated: May 20, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2