Doe v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 45

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 39 Motion to Quash. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/24/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (sisS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 16-cv-06950-KAW
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
QUASH

v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 39

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On June 20, 2017, Plaintiff John Doe filed a motion to quash Defendants' subpoenas for

14

medical records, and to require that Defendants turn over any medical records that had been

15

produced to them. (Plf.'s Mot., Dkt. No. 39.) On July 5, 2017, Defendants filed an opposition,

16

stating that Plaintiff's motion was moot because Defendants had withdrawn the subpoenas at issue,

17

and had not obtained any medical records prior to withdrawal of the subpoenas. (Defs.' Opp'n,

18

Dkt. No. 41.) Plaintiff did not file a reply.

19

The Court deems the matter suitable for disposition without hearing pursuant to Civil

20

Local Rule 7-1(b) and VACATES the hearing currently set for August 3, 2017. Having

21

considered the papers filed by the parties and the relevant legal authority, the Court DENIES the

22

motion as moot because Defendants have already withdrawn the subpoenas and have no medical

23

records to turn over.

24

In their opposition, Defendants express frustration with the discovery process and

25

Plaintiffs' alleged refusal to engage in a meaningful meet and confer process. (Defs.' Opp'n at 6.)

26

Defendants request that the Court appoint a discovery referee to resolve future discovery disputes.

27

(Id. at 7.) The Court DENIES Defendants' request at this time, but will reiterate that all parties,

28

including Plaintiff, have an obligation to meet and confer in good faith with respect to any

1

discovery disputes. While Plaintiff is pro se, Plaintiff is still required to comply with the Court's

2

rules and standing order, as well as his own discovery obligations. Failure to do so may result in

3

sanctions for failure to cooperate in the discovery process, including monetary, evidentiary, or

4

terminating sanctions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. See Gordon v. Cty. of

5

Alameda, No. CV-06-2997-SBA, 2007 WL 1750207, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2007) ("Federal

6

Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides for sanctions available for failure to make disclosures or

7

cooperate in discovery. Under Rule 37(b)(2)(C), if a party fails to obey an order to provide

8

discovery, the court may dismiss the action or proceeding in whole or in part"); In re Pryor, 543

9

Fed. Appx. 685, 685 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion
in directing entry of default based on the party's willful failure to attend a status conference,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

cooperate in the discovery process, and timely respond to the court's order to show cause).

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 24, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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