Steshenko v. McKay et al

Filing 285

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO QUASH AND GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 210 Motion to Quash; granting in part 215 Motion to Compel; denying 230 Motion to Quash (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

GREGORY STESHENKO,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

THOMAS MCKAY, ET AL.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 09-CV-05543-RS (PSG)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO QUASH AND
GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
(Re: Docket Nos. 210, 215, 230)

17
Plaintiff Gregory Steshenko (“Steshenko”) moves to quash two subpoenas and to compel
18
production of documents. Defendants Kristine Scopazzi, Berthalupe Carrillo, Sally Newell, the
19
Watsonville Community Hospital (collectively the “Hospital Defendants”), Thomas McKay,
20
Dorothy Nunn, Anne Lucero and Cabrillo Community College (collectively the “College
21
Defendants”) oppose the respective motions against them. On April 24, 2012, the parties appeared
22
for hearing. Having reviewed the papers and considered the arguments of the parties,
23
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Steshenko’s motion to quash the subpoena issued to Johns
24
Hopkins University is DENIED.
25
The subpoena was issued by a district court in Maryland. That is the proper court to hear
26

any disputes related to the subpoena. 1

27
28

1

See Fincher v. Keller Indus, Inc., 129 F.R.D. 123, 125 (M.D. N.C. 1990) (The court which issues
the subpoena is the proper forum for ruling on motions to compel).
1
Case No.: C 09-5543 RS (PSG)
ORDER

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Steshenko’s motion to compel is GRANTED-IN-PART.

2

On October 14, 2011, Steshenko served his third set of requests for production of

3

documents.

4

Steshenko contends that notwithstanding a stay in the case from October 25, 2011 to

5

February 17, 2012, the College Defendants have failed to produce any responsive documents or

6

any privilege log.

7

The College Defendants respond that they agreed to produce all non-confidential, nonprivileged documents that they were able to locate by the end of March 2012 and that on March 29,

9

2012, they served Steshenko, as they had promised, with documents responsive to his third set of

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

document requests as well as a privilege log. They contend that Steshenko’s motion therefore is

11

moot. The College Defendants also note that Steshenko failed to meet and confer before filing the

12

motion to compel and that the motion could have been avoided entirely had Steshenko met and

13

conferred with them as Rule 37(a) requires. The College Defendants oppose any award of

14

sanctions.

15

The court is without the benefit of the College Defendants’ actual responses to Steshenko’s

16

third set of document requests. Relying instead on Steshenko’s declaration in support of his motion

17

to compel, 2 the court finds that the College Defendants should produce documents responsive to

18

document request nos. 67, 70, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, and 93. Any

19

outstanding documents should be produced no later than May 4, 2012. Steshenko has not

20

established to the court’s satisfaction the relevance of documents responsive to document request

21

nos. 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 76, and 77. He seeks academic records, records related to the individual

22

defendants’ alleged cognitive disabilities, a doctoral dissertation, and professional publications.

23

None of these documents appear relevant to Steshenko’s claims that he was improperly terminated

24

from a nursing program. Similarly, Steshenko has not established the relevance of documents

25

responsive to document request nos. 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98.

26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Steshenko’s motion to quash a subpoena served on the

27

Employment Development Department (“EDD”) is DENIED.

28

2

See Docket No. 258.
2

Case No.: C 09-5543 RS (PSG)
ORDER

1

The subpoena to the EDD was issued by a district court in Sacramento. For the same reason

2

that the district court in Maryland is the proper court to hear any disputes related to the subpoena

3

served on Johns Hopkins University, the district court in Sacramento is the proper court to hear any

4

disputes related to the subpoena served on the EDD.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated:

4/25/2012

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: C 09-5543 RS (PSG)
ORDER