Rovid et al v. Newell Brands Inc et al

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING PARTIES' REQUEST RE COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 45 SUBPOENA 29 by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BILL ROVID, et al.,

9
10
11

Case No. 17-cv-01506-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS
INC., et al.,

ORDER DENYING PARTIES'
REQUEST RE COMPLIANCE WITH
RULE 45 SUBPOENA
Re: Dkt. No. 29

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14

On January 25, 2018, defendant Graco Children’s Products, Inc. (“Graco”) served

15

a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 subpoena on Adam Williams. Williams is the the

16

Alameda County Sheriff’s Deputy and led the Alameda County Coroner’s Bureau’s

17

investigation into the death of plaintiffs’ daughter (the “investigation”). Dkt. 29-1, Swaney

18

Decl. ¶ 3; Dkt. 29-1, Ex. A. That subpoena required Williams to appear for a deposition

19

on March 5, 2018, and to produce documents relevant to the Coroner’s Bureau’s

20

investigation. Ex. A. At his deposition on March 5, 2018, Williams informed the parties

21

that though the Coroner’s Bureau had identified non-public responsive documents, it

22

would not release those documents without a court order. Swaney Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.

23

The parties now jointly request the court for an “Order Directing Compliance with

24

Rule 45 Subpoena.” Dkt. 29-2. Specifically, the parties request the court order Williams

25

to produce all documents related to the investigation, “includ[ing] documents related to

26

the post-mortem examination of [plaintiffs’ daughter] in the custody of the Alameda

27

County Sheriff’s Office Coroner’s Bureau.” Id. (emphasis added).

28

That request is DENIED. Graco’s Rule 45 subpoena is directed at Adam Williams

1

as an individual. See Ex. A. Under Rule 45, a subpoena recipient must produce the

2

requested documents only if those documents are “in that person’s possession, custody,

3

or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). The parties do not argue that Williams failed

4

to do so. Instead, the parties argue that Williams should be compelled to produce

5

documents “in the custody of the Alameda Sheriff’s Office Coroner’s Bureau.” Dkt. 29-2.

6

Rule 45 does not impose such a burden, and neither will the court.

7

In short, Graco has issued a subpoena on the wrong entity. If Graco wishes to

8

obtain the non-publicly available documents related to the investigation, then Graco’s

9

subpoena should be directed to the Alameda Sheriff’s Office Coroner’s Bureau’s

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Custodian of Records, or another similarly situated person.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 9, 2018
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

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