Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 251

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 218 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Re: Docket No. 218)

Defendant Superior Court of California seeks an order quashing the 19 subpoenas Plaintiffs
16

Adil Hiramanek and Roda Hiramanek have served on various court officers, staff and others. 1

17
SCCA also seeks a protective order requiring Plaintiffs to seek leave of court before issuing any
18

further subpoenas. 2 Plaintiffs oppose.

19
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3), SCCA argues that (1) Plaintiffs may not depose or
20
seek records from a non-party judicial officer on acts and thought processes made in his or her
21
1

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The subpoenas for testimony and records target: Hon. Socrates Manoukian, Hon. L. Michael
Clark, Hon. William Elfving. The subpoenas for records target: David Yamasaki, Georgia Ku,
Hon. L. Michael Clark, Hon. Drew Takaichi, Edward Mills, Hon. William Elfving, Pam Juarez,
Hon. Socrates Peter Manoukian, Hon. Carol Overton, Hon. Rise Pichon, Hon. Brian Walsh, Hon.
James Stoelker, Hon. Mary Arand, Defendant Beth Miller, Hon. Eugene Premo and Hon. Conrad
Rushing.
2

Defendants McChristian, Plett and Polombus join Defendant Superior Court of California’s
motion and adopt the same reasoning. See Docket No. 219. Along the same lines, these
Defendants move to quash identical subpoenas that target: Defendant Daryll McChristian,
Defendant Plett, Defendant Polombus, LeMond Davis, Susan Taylor, Daniel Enright, Helen
Camua, Duane Spade and Deputy Low.
1
Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

official capacity; (2) the subpoenas are overbroad in that they exceed the scope of permissible

2

discovery outlined by the presiding judge; 3 (3) if any witness has information relevant to Plaintiffs’

3

limited claims, Plaintiffs can obtain such information through less intrusive means such as through

4

party document requests pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and (4) the requests are vague, ambiguous

5

and overbroad.

6

Plaintiffs’ subpoena requests read as follows:

7

9

“All ‘Documents’, ‘Emails’, incl. ‘Writing’, ‘Recording’, ‘Photograph’, defined by
Rule 1001, Federal Rules of Evidence, & Rule 34 FRCP, in your possession,
custody , or control, associated with Plaintiffs Adil Hiramanek and Roda
Hiramanek from 1/1/2011 to date. ‘Associated’ means connected to, related with,
or concerning.”

10

The subpoenas were served on parties and non-parties alike, many of whom are not connected in

11

any way to the five remaining claims in the case. Further, these subpoenas seek information that is

12

exclusively within the possession, custody, and control of SCCA. Plaintiffs put forth no evidence

13

that might suggest that the subpoenaed individuals have any information above and beyond that

14

housed at the SCCA itself. And Plaintiffs have already sought such information through

15

comprehensive and lengthy Rule 34 requests.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

16

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1), a party “must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing

17

undue burden or expense on a person subject to a subpoena.” Plaintiffs have not shown good cause

18

to justify imposing such a burden on the witnesses—many of whom are members of the state

19

judiciary. Sitting judges “may not be compelled to testify concerning the mental processes used in

20

formulating official judgments or the reasons that motivated [them] in the performance of [their]

21

official duties.” 4 Nor may a judge be compelled to testify regarding official matters unless “there

22

exists a sufficient basis to conclude that the judge ‘possess[es] factual knowledge . . . and [is] the

23

only possible source of testimony on that knowledge.’” 5 None of these factors are satisfied here.

24

3

25

4

26

See Docket No. 201 (permitting discovery only on claims II-A, 10, 17, 35 and 44).

United States v. Roth, 332 F. Supp. 2d 565, 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); see United States v. Morgan,
313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941).
5

27
28

Bliss v. Fisher, 714 F. Supp. 2d 223, 223-24 (D. Mass. 2010) (quoting United States v.
Frankenthal, 582 F.2d 1102, 1108 (7th Cir. 1978)).
2
Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

Parties must be particularly cautious when the judges and others targeted are nonparties. 6 Here, the

2

vast majority of subpoenas target members who are not parties to the litigation and are unlikely to

3

have any new information that party-witnesses could not tender. Such subpoenas are improper.

4

As to those subpoenas against individuals who are not judges—David Yamasaki, Georgia

5

Ku, Edward Mills, Pam Juarez and Defendant Beth Miller—these individuals are all employed by

6

SCCA. To the extent these individuals might have any information, it would be within the

7

custody, possession or control of SCCA and subject to discovery requests already served. Because

8

these subpoenas are duplicative, they present an unnecessary burden. 7

9

Plaintiffs’ primary argument in opposition challenges SCCA’s standing to quash subpoenas

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

on behalf of nonparties. While the plain language of Rule 45 supports such an argument, courts

11

have consistently held that a party can move to quash a subpoena where the party has a personal

12

right or privilege in the information sought to be disclosed. 8 As the employer of the subpoenaed

13

non-parties, there is no doubt that SCCA has such an interest and that the acts of its judges and

14

staff are attributable to it. Finding SCCA’s standing proper, the motion to quash is GRANTED.

15

Finally, Defendants properly rely on Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) to seek a protective order

16

preventing Plaintiffs from serving further subpoenas absent leave of the court. Under Rule 26, “[a]

17

party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court

18

where the action is pending.” In fashioning such relief, a court may issue an order forbidding

19

6

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

See United States v. C.B.S., 666 F.2d 364, 371-72 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Nonparty witnesses are
powerless to control the scope of litigation and discovery, and should not be forced to subsidize an
unreasonable share of the costs of litigation to which they are not a party. . . . [A] witness’s
nonparty status is an important factor to be considered in determining whether to allocate discovery
costs on the demanding or producing party.”).
7

The same reasoning applies to Defendant McChristian, Defendant Plett, Defendant Polombus,
LeMond Davis, Susan Taylor, Daniel Enright, Helen Camua, Duane Spade and Deputy Low.
These individuals are employed by the Office of the Santa Clara County Sheriff. To the extent
these individuals might have relevant information, it is within the possession, custody or control of
the Office. Counsel for Defendants McChristian, Plett and Polombus offered to accept service on
behalf of the Office, but Plaintiffs have not acted on that offer. Subpoenas as to these individuals
similarly are quashed.

8

See, e.g., Wahoo Int’l, Inc. v. Phix Doctor, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-01395, 2014 WL 3573400, at *2
(S.D. Cal. July 18, 2014); Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, Case No. 12-mc-80237, 2013 WL 4536808,
at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013).
3
Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER