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)

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