Carroll v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 185

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating Plaintiffs' 181 Motion to Overrule Objections of Non-Party Carrie Toldstedt and Enforce Plaintiffs' subpoena duces tecum; ORDER denying 182 Motion to Shorten Time. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KELLY CARROLL, ET AL.,

Case No. 3:15-cv-02321-EMC (KAW)

Plaintiffs,
8

11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME; ORDER
TERMINATING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO OVERRULE NON-PARTY
CARRIE TOLSTEDT AND ENFORCE
PLAINTIFFS’ SUBPOENA DUCES
TECUM

12

Re: Dkt. Nos. 181, 182

v.
9
10

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.

13

On February 3, 2017, Non-party Carrie Tolstedt filed a motion to quash Plaintiffs’

14

subpoena. (Dkt. No. 171.) Plaintiffs’ opposition is due on February 17, 2017, and Ms. Tolstedt’s

15

reply is due on February 24, 2017.

16

On February 9, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion to overrule objections of non-party Carrie

17

Tolstedt and enforce Plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum. (Dkt. No. 181.) Also on February 9, 2017,

18

Plaintiffs filed a motion to shorten time under Civil L.R. 6-3 on both the motion to enforce and

19

Ms. Tolstedt’s motion to quash, in which they seek to advance the briefing schedule and hold a

20

hearing on February 23, 2017. (Dkt. No. 182.) On February 13, 2017, Ms. Tolstedt filed an

21

opposition. (Dkt. No. 184.)

22

As an initial matter, the motion to enforce is not a procedurally proper motion. If anything,

23

the motion should be a motion compel, but, given the filing of the motion to quash, Plaintiffs

24

should properly file an opposition. Accordingly, the motion to enforce is TERMINATED and

25

Plaintiffs are instructed to file an opposition.

26

As to Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time, the Court DENIES the motion on the grounds that

27

Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden under Civil L.R. 6-3. Specifically, Plaintiffs have not

28

identified any substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the Court did not change the time.

1

Civil L.R. 6-3(3). Simply stating that Plaintiffs have sought to take Ms. Tolstedt’s deposition

2

since October 26, 2016 is not sufficient to demonstrate substantial harm or prejudice. (See Pls.’

3

Mot. at 1.)

4

As the Court has previously expressed, it is not inclined to permit discovery pertaining to

5

“[t]he unauthorized opening of accounts, the decision to eliminate sales goals or quotas, and the

6

culpability of senior level executives. . . .” (2/9/17 Order, Dkt. No. 183 at 2.) The Court notes that

7

the majority of the deposition subpoena concerns these topics. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ordered

8

to further meet and confer with Ms. Tolstedt regarding the scope of the deposition in an effort to

9

avoid unnecessary motion practice regarding the pending motion to quash.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 14, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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