In re Subpoena to Hayes Accounting Solutions, AAC v. FGG, Inc., 19-mc-80043-VKD. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190318935
Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA Re: Dkt. No. 1 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is non-party Hayes Accounting Solutions, AAC's ("Hayes") motion to quash a document subpoena served by plaintiffs in the matter NNN Capitol Center 16, LLC, et al. v. FGG Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-01688-MWB, in the District of Delaware ("the Delaware action"). The subpoena seeks Hayes's "entire file" regarding the parties and the dispute in the Delaware action, as well as "
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA Re: Dkt. No. 1 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is non-party Hayes Accounting Solutions, AAC's ("Hayes") motion to quash a document subpoena served by plaintiffs in the matter NNN Capitol Center 16, LLC, et al. v. FGG Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-01688-MWB, in the District of Delaware ("the Delaware action"). The subpoena seeks Hayes's "entire file" regarding the parties and the dispute in the Delaware action, as well as "a..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
Re: Dkt. No. 1
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is non-party Hayes Accounting Solutions, AAC's ("Hayes") motion to quash a document subpoena served by plaintiffs in the matter NNN Capitol Center 16, LLC, et al. v. FGG Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-01688-MWB, in the District of Delaware ("the Delaware action"). The subpoena seeks Hayes's "entire file" regarding the parties and the dispute in the Delaware action, as well as "any and all correspondence, communications or other documents" between Hayes and the parties in the Delaware action. Dkt. No. 1-3 at 10.
Citing Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(iv), Hayes moves to quash the subpoena on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and seeks discovery that is duplicative of documents in the possession of the parties in the Delaware action. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. Plaintiffs did not timely respond to the motion to quash or file a statement of nonopposition, as required by the Civil Local Rules of this Court. See Civ. L.R. 7-3.
The Court grants Hayes's unopposed motion to quash plaintiffs' subpoena based on Hayes's showing that the subpoena seeks discovery that is duplicative of discovery in the possession of the parties to the Delaware action, and that enforcing the subpoena would impose an undue burden on Hayes. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii), (iii).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
