McComas v. Rohnert Park et al

Filing 27

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating Plaintiff's 21 Motion to Quash. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the subpoena and the possibility of entering into a stipulated protective order. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DON MCCOMAS,

Case No. 16-cv-02705-TEH (KAW)

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER TERMINATING MOTION TO
QUASH; ORDER REQUIRING
PARTIES TO SUBMIT A JOINT
LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 22

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On September 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena for

14

Plaintiff’s personnel file from his employer RPM Automotive. (Dkt. No. 22). On September 20,

15

2016, this case was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore for discovery purposes.

16

Pursuant to the undersigned’s standing order, discovery disputes between the parties must

17

be addressed in a joint letter. (Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 13.) Accordingly, The

18

Court TERMINATES the motion to quash and orders the parties to meet and confer in good faith

19

to resolve the dispute without further court intervention. Should those efforts fail to fully resolve

20

the remaining dispute, the parties shall file a joint letter not to exceed five pages, in which they

21

provide a detailed summary of each party's final substantive position and their final proposed

22

compromise on each issue, including relevant legal authority. Id. Additionally, the parties should

23

attach the subpoena as an exhibit to the joint letter, which shall be tabbed and physically attached

24

with a staple or brads.

25

To aid the parties in their meet and confer efforts, and with only the benefit of reviewing

26

Plaintiff’s complaint and the motion to quash, the Court has difficulty believing that Plaintiff’s

27

entire personnel file is discoverable. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff’s claims of emotional and

28

physical distress likely require discovery regarding his medical history, including how it affected

1

his employment, if at all, both prior to and following the incident.

2

Additionally, any confidential information ultimately produced may be subject to a

3

protective order, so the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding entering into a stipulated

4

protective order. See Northern District’s Model Stipulated Protective Order for Standard Litigation

5

(available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/model-protective-orders). Any stipulated protective order

6

must be accompanied by a declaration indicating whether the parties are using a model protective

7

order or a modified protective order. (See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 11.)

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 28, 2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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