Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dunham v. County of Monterey, 18-cv-04467-JCS. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20191211a61 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re: Dkt. No. 71. JOSEPH C. SPERO , Magistrate Judge . On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff John F. Dunham ("Plaintiff") filed a motion for an order requiring non-party and former defendant, California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. ("CFMG"), to show cause as to why it should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena served in June 2019. On November 26, 2019, counsel for CFMG filed a declaration in response to Plaintiff's motion. Pla
More

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 71.

On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff John F. Dunham ("Plaintiff") filed a motion for an order requiring non-party and former defendant, California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. ("CFMG"), to show cause as to why it should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena served in June 2019. On November 26, 2019, counsel for CFMG filed a declaration in response to Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff never filed a reply in support of his motion. Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court concludes that this matter is suitable for decision without a hearing.

On June 5, 2019, Plaintiff served CFMG with the subpoena at issue. See Dkt. No. 71 at 3. Counsel for CFMG states that Plaintiff never mentioned the subpoena at any time during the over three-month period CFMG was a defendant in the case and her office was unaware of the subpoena until counsel for Plaintiff sent her an email on October 18, 2019.1 See Dkt. No. 72. at 2, 3. Counsel for CFMG states that she believes it was unreasonable for Plaintiff to expect an immediate response to the subpoena once counsel for CFMG was made aware of the subpoena. See id. at 3. On November 25, 2019, CFMG responded in full to the subpoena at issue and the response was made without objection. See id. at 3. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for order to show cause. The Court hereby vacates the motion hearing date currently set for December 20, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Counsel for CFMG states that the subpoena was served directly on the agent for service of process while CFMG was experiencing significant internal transitions and restructuring, which may have contributed to the oversight of the subpoena. See Dkt. No. 72 at 3. For example, Counsel for CFMG explains that CFMG's legal department, where the subpoena may have been routed, was transferred from California to Tennessee. Id.
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