Santiago v. County of Hawaii - Hawaii Police Department et al

Filing 94

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND AN ORDER TO QUASH SUBPOENA re 92 - Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 8/25/2017. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants regi stered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Jonathan Kimo Santiago served by first class mail to the address of record on August 25, 2017.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
CIVIL NO. 16-00583 DKW-KSC

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
STATE OF HAWAII; COUNTY OF
HAWAII - HAWAII POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT; JOHN DOES 1-100; )
JAND DOES 1-100; DOE
)
)
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10;
BRYSON MIYOSE AND KIMO
)
)
VEINCENT, in their official
capacities and as individual )
)
persons,
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )
JONATHAN KIMO SANTIAGO,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER,
AND AN ORDER TO QUASH SUBPOENA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER,
AND AN ORDER TO QUASH SUBPOENA
On August 21, 2017, Plaintiff Jonathan Kimo Santiago
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Protective Order, and an Order
to Quash Subpoena (“Motion”).

Defendants County of Hawaii -

Hawaii Police Department, Bryson Miyose, and Kimo Veincent
(collectively “Defendants”) filed an Opposition on August 22,
2017.

The Court elects to decide this matter without a hearing

pursuant to Rule 7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice for the
U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii.

For the reasons

detailed below, the Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff seeks a protective order and to quash
subpoenas issued to 1) Melissa George, Custodian of Records,
AFLAC and 2) Hawaiian Airlines.

Defendants challenge the Motion

as untimely and moot, and represent that the statements contained
in Plaintiff’s Affidavit and Certificate of Compliance are false.
A motion to quash must be timely filed.
P. 45(d)(3)(A).

Fed. R. Civ.

“‘Timely’ is not defined in the rule nor

elaborated upon in the advisory committee’s notes.”

U.S. ex rel.

Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of Am., Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d
270, 278 (D.D.C. 2002).

Court generally have interpreted

“‘timely’ to mean within the time set in the subpoena for
compliance.”

Id. (citing Innomed Labs, LLC v. Alza Corp., 211

F.R.D. 237, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)) (noting that in the absence of a
definition of “timely” in Rule 45, “it is reasonable to assume
that the motion to quash should be brought before the noticed
date of the scheduled deposition”); In re Motorsports Merch.
Antitrust Litig., 186 F.R.D. 344, (W.D. Va. 1999) (a motion to
quash filed 36 days after corporate representatives became aware
of subpoena and two months after it was due is untimely));
Anderson v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 06cv991-WQH
(BLM), 2007 WL 1994059, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 2, 2007) (finding
untimely a motion to quash filed after the date specified for
document production).
Inasmuch as both subpoenas had August 11, 2017
compliance dates and Plaintiff did not file this Motion until
August 21, 2017, the Motion is DENIED as untimely.

HT S.R.L. v.

Velasco, 125 F. Supp. 3d 211, 230 (D.D.C. 2015) (finding untimely

2

the motion to quash, which was filed 21 days after compliance and
50 days after service); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nassiri, No. 2:08CV-369 JCM (GWF), 2011 WL 4905639, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2011)
(it was not clear error for the magistrate judge to find the
motion to quash or modify subpoena untimely where the non-party
had 3-week notice of deposition but filed motion 3 days before
the deposition).
The Motion is additionally denied as moot.

According

to Defendants, AFLAC and Hawaiian Airlines responded on July 14,
2017, and July 12, 2017, respectively.
The Court is concerned about the allegation that
Plaintiff has submitted false statements to the Court.

Plaintiff

is reminded that he must comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 and his failure to do so may result in the
imposition of sanctions.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

Honolulu, Hawaii, August 25, 2017.

_____________________________
Kevin S.C. Chang
United States Magistrate Judge

CIVIL NO. 16-00583 DKW-KSC; SANTIAGO V. STATE OF HAWAII, ET AL.; ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND AN ORDER TO QUASH SUBPOENA

3