Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BEECHAM v. ROSEVILLE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 2:15-cv-1022-KJM-EFB. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170523930 Visitors: 12
Filed: May 22, 2017
Latest Update: May 22, 2017
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . This case is before the court on plaintiff Jennifer Vergara's motion to quash subpoenas served by defendant Theresa Van Wagner on non-parties Catholic Healthcare West and Dignity Health. 1 ECF Nos. 83, 93. As argued by plaintiff Vergara, the subpoenas are untimely and must therefore be quashed. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order was issued on November 25, 2015, which provides that all discovery shall be completed by January 23, 2017. ECF No.
More

ORDER

This case is before the court on plaintiff Jennifer Vergara's motion to quash subpoenas served by defendant Theresa Van Wagner on non-parties Catholic Healthcare West and Dignity Health.1 ECF Nos. 83, 93. As argued by plaintiff Vergara, the subpoenas are untimely and must therefore be quashed.

A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order was issued on November 25, 2015, which provides that all discovery shall be completed by January 23, 2017. ECF No. 27 at 2. The order further provides that "`completed' means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed." Id.

The subpoenas at issue were not served until April 2017, well after the deadline for completion of discovery. ECF No. 83-1 at 4-13. Consequently, the subpoenas issued by Van Wagner are untimely under the court's scheduling order. See nSight, Inc. v. PeopleSoft, Inc., 2006 WL 988807, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2006) ("Many courts have found that Rule 45 subpoenas sought after the discovery cut-off are improper attempts to obtain discovery beyond the discovery period."); Crayton v. Rochester Medical Corp., 2010 WL 392341 (E.D. Cal. Jan 25, 2010) (granting motion to quash a subpoena that was issued after the non-expert discovery deadline).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff Jennifer Vergara's motion to quash (ECF No. 83) is granted;

2. The May 24, 2017 hearing on plaintiff Vergara's motion to quash is vacated; and

3. Plaintiffs' counsel's request to appear telephonically at the May 24 hearing (ECF No. 95) is denied as moot.

FootNotes


1. The court has determined that oral argument would not materially assist in the resolution of the motion, and the hearing noticed for May 24, 2017, is hereby vacated. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer