Sepehry-Fard v. GreenPoint Mortgage Fundiing, Inc., et al

Filing 121

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd terminating 114 Ex Parte Motion to Quash. Parties shall have 10 days to meet and confer and, if necessary, file a Discovery Dispute Joint Report in compliance with the Standing Order re: Civil Discovery Disputes. The date set for compliance with the subpoenas shall be stayed during this time and pending judicial resolution of the DDJR, if filed. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2014)

1

*E-Filed: March 11, 2014*

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING,
INC., ET AL.,

No. C13-04535-EJD (HRL)
ORDER TERMINATING EX PARTE
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
[Re: Docket No. 114]

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
In this quiet title action, Plaintiff Fareed Sepehry-Fard served Defendant Greenpoint

18

Mortgage Funding, Inc. (“Greenpoint”) with three subpoenas on February 21, 2014, which

19

command Lynn Graham, a Greenpoint Vice President in Texas, to appear in California on March

20

18, 2014, to produce documents, testify at a deposition, and testify at a hearing. On March 7, 2014,

21

defendant Greenpoint and non-party Graham (making a special, limited appearance) moved ex parte

22

to quash the subpoenas.

23

All discovery matters having been referred to the undersigned for disposition, the parties are

24

required to comply with the undersigned’s Standing Order re: Civil Discovery Disputes (“Standing

25

Order”). Moreover, in a January 2014 order denying Plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery, the

26

Court clearly stated that “in the event discovery disputes arise, the parties shall comply with the

27

undersigned’s Standing Order re: Civil Discovery Disputes.” See Dkt. 75. The Standing Order

28

expressly provides that “[a]bsent leave of court, formal noticed discovery motions may no longer be

1

filed and, if filed contrary to this order, will not be heard.” Generally, the parties may seek judicial

2

intervention only after an in-person meeting between lead counsel fails to resolve the dispute, in

3

which case the parties shall file a Discovery Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”).

4

Accordingly, the motion is terminated without prejudice to resubmit the matter for the

5

Court’s consideration in compliance with the undersigned’s Standing Order. The parties shall have

6

10 days from the date of this order to meet and confer and, if necessary, file a DDJR. The date set

7

for compliance with the subpoenas shall be stayed during this time and pending judicial resolution

8

of the DDJR, if filed.

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2014
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2

1

C13-04535 Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Andrew Alexander Wood

3

Anne Pellegrom Daher

4

Helen Dan-Hwei Hsueh

5

Joseph W. Guzzetta

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

6

Philip Alan McLeod

[e-mail], [e-mail]

7

C13-04535 Notice will be mailed to:

8

Fareed Sepehry-Fard
12309 Saratoga Creek Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3