United States of America et al v. Bell Transit Corporation et al

Filing 142

ORDER by Judge Hamilton re 140 Discovery Letter Brief. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

MATTHEW WAYNE, et al.,

ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER
BRIEF
Re: Dkt. No. 140

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-06994-PJH

12
13
The plaintiff-relator in the above-captioned case has filed a discovery letter brief

14
15

seeking resolution of a discovery matter. See Dkt. 140.1 The letter explains that the

16

court previously dismissed claims against defendant Hayward Unified School District

17

(“HUSD”), but allowed claims against three individual employees of the district to

18

proceed. See Dkt. 123.

19

Plaintiff now seeks discovery from HUSD, and because HUSD is no longer a party

20

to the case, such discovery must proceed as third-party discovery. However, the person

21

to which third-party discovery would typically be directed is HUSD Superintendent

22

Matthew Wayne, who remains a defendant in this case. Plaintiff explains that he is

23

“ethically prohibited from contacting Mr. Wayne or serving discovery on him in his

24

capacity as Superintendent of HUSD.” Dkt. 140 at 1.
Plaintiff states that he has asked Mr. Wayne’s counsel, who also served as

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a second letter explaining that he did not file a joint letter brief
because this is not a dispute between the parties, but rather an attempt to obtain
discovery from a third party. See Dkt. 141. The court agrees that a joint letter brief was
not required in this instance.

1

HUSD’s counsel prior to dismissal, to identify a contact person upon whom to serve

2

discovery, but they have “declined to do so with no explanation.” Dkt. 140 at 1.

3

The court agrees with plaintiff that any discovery sought from HUSD must proceed

4

as third-party discovery, and that a dilemma is created when the person on whom such

5

third-party discovery must be served is also a defendant in the case. Accordingly, the

6

court DIRECTS defendant Matthew Wayne to file a statement indicating whether he is

7

willing to accept service of third-party discovery in his official capacity as HUSD

8

Superintendent (i.e., not in his individual capacity), or whether he wishes to designate

9

another person to accept service on behalf of HUSD or whether there is already a
designated agent for service of process for the district. If Mr. Wayne wishes to designate

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

another person or if there is already a designated agent, the statement shall provide the

12

name and contact information of that person. Such statement shall be filed no later than

13

February 14, 2022.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2022
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2