RBS Securities Inc. v. Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc.

Filing 7

ORDER granting 3 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents. As provided herein, Defendant must produce documents responsive to the subject subpoena no later than September 21, 2012, absent agreement of the parties or further order of the court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 9/10/12. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RBS SECURITIES INC.,

CASE NO. 12cv2132-JM (MDD)
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO COMPEL

vs.
13
14

Defendant.

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

[ECF NO. 3]

PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE, INC.,

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with a subpoena
duces tecum issued to Defendant under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 in connection with federal
civil litigation pending in the Western District of Wisconsin. (See ECF No. 1-2, Exh.
A). Defendant is not a party to that action but is located in this District.
Accordingly, the subpoena was issued by this Court. (Id. at Exh. C). This Court has
jurisdiction to hear this motion pursuant to Rule 45(c)(3).
The subpoena requires Defendant to produce certain loan files. Defendant has
refused to produce the files unless Plaintiff complies with California Code of Civil
Procedure, section 1985.3 (“CCP 1985.3"). CCP 1985.3 imposes upon the party
seeking the records an obligation to notify the consumer and provide an opportunity
to object to disclosure.
Plaintiff asserts that CCP 1985.3 does not apply to federal proceedings and
federal subpoenas. By its terms, CCP 1985.3 applies to a person who causes “a
-1-

1

subpoena duces tecum to be issued or served in connection with any civil action or

2

proceeding pursuant to this code . . . .” CCP 1985.3(a)(3) (emphasis added). The

3

subpoena in this case was not issued pursuant to the California Civil Code. See

4

McKinney v. Department of the Treasury, 1996 WL 775922 at n.1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25,

5

1996).

6

Some courts have wandered into the morass of determining whether CCP

7

1985.3 creates a privilege under California law and whether that privilege should be

8

accorded some recognition in federal proceedings. See, e.g. Corser v. County of

9

Merced, 2006 WL 253622 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006): Robinson v. Kia Motors America,

10

Inc., 2011 WL 2433369 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2011). This Court instead will credit the

11

plain language of the statute regarding its scope. A subpoena duces tecum issued

12

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not subject to CCP 1985.3 which, by its

13

terms, is limited to subpoenas issued under the CCP.

14

To the extent that any particular borrower has a privacy interest in the file

15

pertaining to his or her loan, this Court finds that any such interest is sufficiently

16

protected by the protective order outstanding in this case. (ECF No. 1-2, Exh. B).

17

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to

18

produce responsive records no later than September 21, 2012, absent agreement of

19

the parties or further order of this Court.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 10, 2012

22
23
24

Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
U.S. Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
-2-

12cv2132-JM (MDD)