Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02617/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02617-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

1

18-cv-2617-BAS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: SUBPOENA TO WELLS 

FARGO BANK, N.A.

Case No.: 18-cv-2617-BAS-MDD

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

[ECF NO. 34]

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of this Court’s 

February 6, 2019 Order. (ECF No. 34). Plaintiffs were required to file their 

motion for reconsideration on or before April 8, 2019. (ECF No. 29). Instead 

of filing their intended motion, Plaintiffs filed a copy of the motion for 

reconsideration to this Court’s January 14, 2019 order in a related case. 

(ECF No. 30; see 18-cv-873 at ECF No. 57). The two orders denied production 

of the same unredacted escrow account records. Plaintiffs discovered the

error on April 19, 2019. (ECF No. 32). After reviewing the record, the Court 

permitted Plaintiffs to file the intended motion for reconsideration after the 

deadline and allowed Defendant Boston National Title to file a supplemental 

opposition. (ECF Nos. 33, 35). 

The Court finds this Motion suitable for determination on the papers as 

Case 3:18-cv-02617-BAS-MDD Document 36 Filed 05/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

18-cv-2617-BAS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

filed without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated 

below, this Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. 

I. BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2019, the Court granted a motion to quash a subpoena 

served by Plaintiffs in Appel, et al., v. Boston National Title Co., Civil No. 18-

cv-0873-BAS-MDD upon non-party Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (ECF No. 22)

(“the Order”). The subpoena sought 12 categories of documents from Wells 

Fargo Bank including the unredacted escrow account records and 

communications related to the account between Wells Fargo, Boston 

National, and other non-parties. (See ECF Nos. 7 at 54-55 and 22 at 3). 

Plaintiffs filed objections to the Order with the District Judge on 

February 20, 2019. (ECF No. 24). In support of their objections, Plaintiffs 

provided two expert witness declarations. (Id.). The District Judge struck 

the declarations because they were not presented to this Court. (Id. at ECF 

No. 26). In lieu of ruling on the objections without the declarations, the 

District Judge allowed Plaintiffs to file a motion for reconsideration with this 

Court. (Id.). Plaintiffs did not include the expert witness declarations with 

their submissions. (See ECF No. 30, 32, 34). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Non-party Subpoena

Rule 45, Fed. R. Civ. P., governs obtaining information by subpoena 

from non-parties. Under Rule 45(d)(1), the requesting party or attorney 

“must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a 

person subject to the subpoena.” A non-party subject to a subpoena duces 

tecum “deserve[s] extra protection from the courts.” High Tech Medical 

Instrumentation v. New Image Indus., 161 F.R.D. 86, 88 (N.D. Cal. 1995) 

(citing United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 666 F.2d 364, 371-72 

Case 3:18-cv-02617-BAS-MDD Document 36 Filed 05/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

18-cv-2617-BAS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

(9th Cir. 1982)). 

Apart from the special duty imposed on the requesting party by Rule 

45(d)(1), Rule 26(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that discovery may be obtained 

only if it is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 

needs of the case. See Soto v. Castlerock Farming & Transpl., Inc., 282 

F.R.D. 492, 503 (E.D. Cal. 2012). 

B. Motion for Reconsideration

District courts may entertain a motion for reconsideration of an 

interlocutory order at any time before entry of final judgment. See FED. R.

CIV. P. 54(b), 59(e); Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly.” Kona 

Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Reconsideration may be appropriate where: (1) the movant presents newly 

discovered evidence; (2) the Court committed clear error or the initial 

decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) an intervening change in controlling 

law has occurred. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. V. ACandS, Inc., 5 

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement 

with the court's decision. To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a 

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. 

Cancino-Casteller v. Nielsen, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1110 (S.D. Cal. 2018); see 

also Jones v. AeroChem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Recapitulation of arguments already considered by the court fails to carry the 

moving party’s burden to show reconsideration is warranted. See Salem v. 

FDIC for La Jolla Bank, FSB, No. 15-cv-1114, 2017 WL 1375616 at *2 (S.D. 

Cal. 2017).

///

Case 3:18-cv-02617-BAS-MDD Document 36 Filed 05/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

18-cv-2617-BAS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs have made multiple attempts to obtain unredacted copies of 

the Wells Fargo escrow account records at issue here. This Court addressed 

the issue in the underlying case. (See 18-cv-873 at ECF No. 30). In that case, 

the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate “the relevance of the 

identities of other customers and their transactions to the issues surrounding 

the alleged delay by Boston National Title in returning Plaintiffs’ funds.” 

(Id.). Therefore, the Court denied the compelled production of the unredacted 

records from Boston National Title. Plaintiffs filed a motion for 

reconsideration of that order. (Id. at ECF No. 57). On April 30, 2019 the 

Court denied the motion to reconsider. (Id. at ECF No. 68). 

The burden is on the movant to establish that reconsideration is 

warranted. Plaintiffs must identify new evidence that was not previously 

available and demonstrate why that new evidence should cause the court to 

reverse its prior decision. See Cancino-Casteller, 338 F.Supp.3d at 1110. In 

this motion to reconsider, Plaintiffs offer the same arguments and new 

evidence they offered in the underlying case. Therefore, the same analysis 

applies.

Plaintiffs new evidence includes two expert witness declarations and 

deposition testimony from two Boston National Title employees. The expert

witnesses claim to require “a complete accounting of the monies held in the 

account” and “transaction-level detail” in order to analyze Plaintiffs’ claims. 

(ECF Nos. 26-1 and 26-2). The Boston National Title employees testified that 

they rely on the unredacted account records for daily accounting purposes. 

In the underlying case, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs’ new 

evidence failed to address why the identities of the third parties is relevant to 

Plaintiffs’ litigation. Because Plaintiffs did not offer new evidence or legal 

Case 3:18-cv-02617-BAS-MDD Document 36 Filed 05/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

18-cv-2617-BAS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

arguments that address this issue, they did not meet their burden to move 

the court to reconsider its previous order. Moreover, the Court found that 

Boston National Title Company offered to provide Plaintiffs with the 

information required by the experts—i.e., the “redacted Wells Fargo Bank 

account statements reflecting the total monthly balance, daily balance, and 

date and amount of every transaction, redacting customer identities and the 

details of the transaction.” (See 18-cv-0873, ECF No. 29-2, ¶ 4). 

Plaintiffs offer the same arguments and new evidence in this case. 

Plaintiffs are seeking the same unredacted documents they sought in the 

underlying case, but from a third party. Because non-parties are given even

greater protections by the Court in the discovery process than parties, 

Plaintiffs’ burden is higher. Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to compel 

the production of the documents from Boston National Title. Therefore, they 

did not meet their burden to compel the production of the documents from 

Wells Fargo. 

Plaintiffs also claim they have “genuine concern regarding the 

authenticity of the redacted Wells Fargo Bank Statements” because Boston 

National has “abused the discovery process by failing to produce all 

[responsive] documents.” Plaintiffs also claim that if Boston National redacts 

some information, they are “forced to wonder what else Boston National is 

concealing.” 

The Court determined that the third party information in the records is 

not relevant to Plaintiffs’ case. Only relevant information is discoverable. 

See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b). Boston National Title met their discovery 

obligations by providing the redacted records. Plaintiffs have not identified 

any production gaps in the discovery received from Boston National Title

such that the Court will compel the information from a third party. 

Case 3:18-cv-02617-BAS-MDD Document 36 Filed 05/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

18-cv-2617-BAS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Plaintiffs have not met their burden to persuade the Court that the 

third party information found in the escrow account records is relevant to 

Plaintiffs’ case or that it should reverse its prior decision. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider is DENIED.

Dated: May 22, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02617-BAS-MDD Document 36 Filed 05/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6