Erickson Productions Inc et al v. Kraig R Kast

Filing 291

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 268 Erickson Motion to Quash Subpoenas; denying as moot 290 Erickson Motion to Adjourn Hearing. 2/13/2018 motion hearing vacated. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court Northern District of California 11 ERICKSON PRODUCTIONS INC, et al., 12 Case No.5:13-cv-05472-HRL Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 KRAIG R. KAST, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 ORDER (1) GRANTING ERICKSON’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS; AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT ERICKSON MOTION TO ADJOURN HEARING Re: Dkt. Nos. 268, 290 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Jim Erickson and Erickson Productions, Inc. (collectively, “Erickson”) move to quash subpoenas Kast caused to be issued on JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., First National Bank of Northern California, and First American Title Insurance Company. Kast opposes the motion. The matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument, and the February 13, 2018 hearing is vacated.1 Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, the court rules as follows: 24 25 26 The subpoenas at issue are procedurally improper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4), (b)(1). They also seek irrelevant information. Moreover, this case is now in a post-judgment phase in which Erickson seeks discovery in aid of judgment or execution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69. “The 27 28 1 Erickson’s request to continue the motion hearing is denied as moot. 1 discovery contemplated by rule 69(a) is a distinct phase of the litigation with a narrow focus. It is 2 solely to enforce the judgment by way of the supplemental proceedings.” Danning v. Lavine, 572 3 F.2d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1978). “One purpose of such special discovery is to identify assets that 4 can be used to satisfy a judgment.” Ryan Investment Corp. v. Pedregal de Cabo San Lucas, No. 5 06-3219 JW (RS), 2009 WL 5114077, at *1 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2009) (citation omitted). 6 “Another purpose is to discover concealed or fraudulently transferred assets.” Id. (citation 7 omitted). Kast fails to persuade that he is entitled to parallel post-judgment discovery. 8 Accordingly, Erickson’s motion to quash the subject subpoenas is granted. 9 10 SO ORDERED. Dated: February 9, 2018 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 HOWARD R. LLOYD United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?