Grimes v. United Parcel Service et al

Filing 344

ORDER by Judge Seeborg RE 305 MIT Subpoena (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2008)

Grimes v. United Parcel Service et al

Doc. 344

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION *E-Filed 02/01/2008*

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. GREGORY NEAL GRIMES, Plaintiff, NO. C 05-01824 RS ORDER RE MIT SUBPOENA

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant.

/

Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS") moves to quash a subpoena issued to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT") under the auspices of the District Court for the district of Massachusetts. UPS is correct when it observes that a "trial subpoena" generally may not be used to obtain documents except under limited circumstances not present here. That said, however, there is no dispute that in this particular instance plaintiff did not use the subpoena as a discovery tool. Instead, plaintiff sought only to obtain in a different electronic format a video that was and is publicly available on MIT's website. Accordingly, any concern that plaintiff was seeking to discover information after the discovery cut off would be misplaced. Although it might have been technologically awkward, it appears that plaintiff likely could have shown the video at trial (if otherwise admissible) whether or not he obtained a copy from MIT. 1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Additionally, to the extent it arguably was improper in a procedural sense for plaintiff to have this subpoena issued, it likewise is procedurally improper for UPS to move to quash in this court. See Fed R. Civ. P. 45 (c) (3) (a) ("On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify , , . .) (emphasis added.) Under all these circumstances, the Court declines to conclude that the video may not be shown at trial based on the manner in which plaintiff obtained a copy from MIT. Nothing in this ruling, however, precludes UPS from arguing that the video is otherwise inadmissible. Plaintiff has suggested that he may not even attempt to introduce the video into evidence. The Court will rule on the general admissibility of the video if and when plaintiff seeks to introduce it. Finally, UPS's request for sanctions fails to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-8. Even if the request had been separately noticed as required by the rule, imposition of sanctions would not be warranted on this record.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 1, 2008 RICHARD SEEBORG United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER C 05-01824 RS

2