Lee v. California Public Utilities Commission et al

Filing 152

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying as moot #119 Motion to Compel; denying #143 Motion to Quash. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
ALIK YUSEF LEE,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO QUASH

v.

9

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION,

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.16-cv-00983-VC (JSC)

Re: Dkt. No. 143

Defendant.

12
Plaintiff Alik Yusef Lee filed this Title VII employment discrimination action against his

13
14

former employer, the California Public Utilities Commission, over a year ago. Over the course of the

15

past several months, Defendant has attempted to obtain discovery from Plaintiff regarding his claims.

16

These efforts culminated in Defendant filing a motion to compel responses to discovery requests

17

seeking information regarding Plaintiff’s efforts to secure employment and income therefrom, which

18

the Court granted. (Dkt. No. 140.) At the same time Defendant was seeking this discovery from

19

Plaintiff, it also sought the discovery directly from Plaintiff’s former employers through subpoenas.

20

Over three weeks after these subpoena were issued, Plaintiff filed the now pending motion to quash the

21

subpoenas. (Dkt. No. 143.) Plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED as untimely.

First, Plaintiff’s motion was filed three weeks after Plaintiff received notice of the

22
23

subpoenas and 12 days after the date of production under the subpoenas. (Dkt. No. 148-1 at 6-23.)

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3) authorizes a “timely” motion to quash, but does not

25

specify the time period for filing such a motion; however, courts generally conclude that a motion

26

to quash must be filed before the date of compliance.1 See Marti v. Baires, No. 1:08-CV-00653-

27
1

28

Indeed, the delay in filing the motion has largely mooted the motion as all but one of the
subpoenaed parties has already responded. (Dkt. No. 148-1 at ¶ 10.)

1

AWI, 2014 WL 1747018, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 1, 2014) (collecting cases concluding that a

2

motion to quash or modify a subpoena after the compliance date is untimely.); U.S. ex rel. Pogue

3

v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of Am., Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d 270, 278 (D. D.C. 2002) (“In general,

4

courts have read “timely” to mean within the time set in the subpoena for compliance.”).

5

Second, Plaintiff’s motion to quash was filed more than seven days after the discovery cut-

6

off in violation of Civil Local Rule 37-3. Plaintiff offers no explanation for his untimely filing,

7

and instead, argues that the information sought is personal and confidential and only sought as

8

retaliation against Plaintiff for filing this action. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) allows

9

for discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense”—evidence regarding Plaintiff’s damages and efforts to mitigate his damages satisfies this

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

standard. Plaintiff’s motion to quash is therefore DENIED.

12

With respect to other outstanding discovery matters, as fact discovery has closed and

13

Plaintiff failed to renew his motion to compel filed November 5, 2016, as the Court directed in its

14

November 14, 2016 Order, his second motion to compel is DENIED AS MOOT. (Dkt. No. 119.)

15

Lastly, the Court notes that Plaintiff still appears to be communicating with defense counsel

16

through his “communication proxy” Jose Ruiz. (Dkt. No. 14-1 at 37.) Plaintiff has been warned

17

twice that he must communicate with defense counsel directly. (Dkt. Nos. 140, 142.) Plaintiff

18

must desist from using Mr. Ruiz—a non-attorney—as an intermediary and must communicate

19

directly himself with defense counsel.

20

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 119 and 143.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: March 8, 2017

23
24
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALIK YUSEF LEE,

Case No. 16-cv-00983-VC (JSC)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION,
Defendant.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on March 8, 2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

18
19
20

Alik Yusef Lee
15998 A E14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94578

21

22
23

Dated: March 8, 2017

24
25

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

26
27
28

By:________________________
Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
3