Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04624/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04624-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WADE ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SHIRAZ QADRI, AVENIR RESTAURANT

GROUP, INC. and GREG ST. CLAIRE,

Defendants. /

No. C06-04624 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR

HEARING DATE ON MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER

[Re: Docket No. 186]

Presently before this court is a dispute over defendants’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 subpoena

seeking deposition testimony and documents from third-party Timothy Gray. Mr. Gray is

identified as a percipient witness who purportedly was disclosed by plaintiff in his initial

disclosures. The subpoena, which reportedly was served on July 25, 2007, set an August 2,

2007 compliance date for Mr. Gray’s deposition and production of documents.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, plaintiff Wade Robertson filed a motion seeking

“administrative” relief – namely, an order (a) quashing defendants’ subpoena and (b) setting a

hearing on a prospective “motion to be brought by Plaintiff seeking a Protective Order for thirdparty witness Tim Gray.” (See Motion at 1:8-9). In essence, plaintiff argues that the subpoena

should be quashed because defense counsel failed to provide him with advance notice of the

subpoena and failed to set a reasonable compliance deadline.

Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion and dispute his assertions as to their alleged non-

*E-FILED: 8.2.2007*

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 195 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

2

compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s Civil Local Rules. 

Additionally, Charles Jung, counsel for Mr. Gray, filed a letter brief with the court stating his

client’s position on the matter. Finally, plaintiff submitted a number of evidentiary objections

to defense counsel’s declaration filed in support of defendant’s opposition. Having considered

the moving and responding papers, the court finds that this flurry of filings appears to be “much

ado” about not much.

Preliminarily, the court finds that Civil Local Rule 7-11 was not an appropriate vehicle

for plaintiff’s motion to quash. His requested relief does not fall within the scope of

“miscellaneous administrative matters” governed by that rule. See CIV. L.R. 7-11.

Plaintiff’s papers indicate that he believed that use of Civil Local Rule 7-11 was

necessitated by the looming August 2, 2007 compliance date set the in defendants’ subpoena

and by his desire to bring an immediate motion for protective order on Mr. Gray’s behalf. 

However, a party that is not the recipient of the subpoena has standing to challenge the

subpoena “only where its challenge asserts that the information is privileged or protected to

itself.” Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Rebel Oil Co., Inc., 157 F.R.D. 691, 695 (D. Nev. 1994). 

Although it is conceivable, on the record presented, it is not readily apparent that plaintiff has

standing to object to the subpoena in the first instance.

At any rate, Mr. Gray has retained his own counsel and served his objections to the

subpoena. That is sufficient to suspend his document production obligations for the time being. 

See FED.R.CIV.P. 45(c)(2)(B) (“If objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not be

entitled to inspect, copy, test, or sample the materials or inspect, the premises except pursuant to

an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued.”). Should there be a continuing dispute

over the requested documents, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 provides that “the party serving the subpoena

may, upon notice to the person commanded to produce, move at any time for an order to compel

the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.” Id. As for Gray’s deposition

testimony, defense counsel has agreed to continue the August 2, 2007 date. While Mr. Jung

contends that there are serious defects in the subpoena, he currently is consulting with Mr. Gray

to see if he will voluntarily appear for deposition. In sum, there does not presently appear to be

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 195 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

3

a ripe dispute for the court to resolve. The motion to quash is therefore denied without

prejudice.

To the extent plaintiff or Mr. Gray feel that it is necessary to bring a motion to protect

their interests as to defendants’ subpoena, they may file a motion and notice a hearing date on

this court’s calendar in compliance with the court’s Civil Local Rules. Plaintiff’s motion for an

order setting a hearing date now on a prospective motion for protective order is denied.

Finally, the court notes that the parties might have avoided motions practice if they had

engaged in meaningful meet-and-confer efforts before the instant motion was filed. Insofar as

they are currently negotiating over potential new deposition date(s), the parties and Mr. Gray

are encouraged to meet-and-confer in good faith and to pick dates and times that are mutually

agreeable to all.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

August 2, 2007

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 195 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

4

5:06-cv-4624 Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Timothy Gray cjung@nassiri-jung.com 

Charles Hyunchul Jung cjung@nassiri-jung.com 

Patrick Cannon Kerwin pkerwin@msn.com, jmbattorney@yahoo.com 

Wade Robertson c0604624@yahoo.com

Counsel are responsible for delivering a copy of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 195 Filed 08/02/07 Page 4 of 4