Filed: Oct. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2016
Summary: ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Before the court is Non-Party Victor Argueta's Motion to Quash Subpoena filed October 20, 2016. (Docket No. 384.) The court heard oral arguments on the motion on the morning of October 24, 2016. Defendant Rodriguez contends that Mr. Argueta is a necessary witness to testify about WMC Mortgage, LLC's ("WMC") "actual" and "specific" underwriting practices. However, Mr. Argueta, in his declaration and statements via counsel, explai
Summary: ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Before the court is Non-Party Victor Argueta's Motion to Quash Subpoena filed October 20, 2016. (Docket No. 384.) The court heard oral arguments on the motion on the morning of October 24, 2016. Defendant Rodriguez contends that Mr. Argueta is a necessary witness to testify about WMC Mortgage, LLC's ("WMC") "actual" and "specific" underwriting practices. However, Mr. Argueta, in his declaration and statements via counsel, explain..
More
ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Before the court is Non-Party Victor Argueta's Motion to Quash Subpoena filed October 20, 2016. (Docket No. 384.) The court heard oral arguments on the motion on the morning of October 24, 2016.
Defendant Rodriguez contends that Mr. Argueta is a necessary witness to testify about WMC Mortgage, LLC's ("WMC") "actual" and "specific" underwriting practices. However, Mr. Argueta, in his declaration and statements via counsel, explained that he was only an entry level "sampling administrator" in WMC's risk analysis department and that he merely ran reports using WMC data without any analysis. He also represented that he was not an underwriter and that he did not work with or apply WMC's underwriting guidelines. Thus, even assuming that testimony regarding WMC's underwriting guidelines were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and 403, there has been no showing that Mr. Argueta has the required personal knowledge of WMC's underwriting practices, and he is not qualified to testify regarding these guidelines.
Moreover, Mr. Argueta does not appear to have any knowledge regarding the defendants' actions, training, or states of mind. Nor does he have any knowledge regarding what WMC or any other lender may have told the defendants.1 Accordingly, Mr. Argueta's testimony does not appear necessary or relevant to defendant Rodriguez's defense and the subpoena is unreasonable under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(2). See United States v. Burgeson, 425 F.3d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 2005).
The court also finds that requiring Mr. Argueta to appear during trial would be oppressive under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(2), given that he lives about 400 miles from Sacramento, is self-employed, is a care-giver for his 1-year old daughter, and has no relevant testimony to offer in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Non-Party Victor Argueta's Motion to Quash Subpoena filed October 20, 2016 be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
