Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01772/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01772-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERALYN RENEA EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRESTON GILMORE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01772-MEJ 

ORDER COMPELLING NON-PARTY 

CHARLES EVANS II TO PRODUCE 

RECORDS IN RESPONSE TO 

SUBPOENA

Re: Dkt. No. 49

On May 19, 2016, Defendant City of Richmond filed a request for a telephonic conference 

regarding non-party Charles Evans II’s failure to comply with a subpoena issued by this Court. 

Dkt. No. 49. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs discovery of non-parties by subpoena. 

Rule 45 provides that a party may command a non-party to produce designated documents, 

electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person’s possession, custody, or 

control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). The scope of discovery through a subpoena under Rule 

45 is the same as the scope of discovery permitted under Rule 26(b). Beinin v. Ctr. for Study of 

Popular Culture, 2007 WL 832962, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2007) (citing Truswal Sys. Corp. v. 

Hydro Air Eng’g Inc., 813 F.2d 1207, 1209-12 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Under Rule 26, a party may 

obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)

To determine whether a subpoena should be enforced, the Court is guided by Rule 45, 

which protects a subpoenaed party from “undue burden,” and Rule 26, which provides that the 

Court must limit discovery if “the discovery sought . . . can be obtained from some other source 

that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive” or if “the burden or expense of the 

proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case 3:15-cv-01772-MEJ Document 50 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

26(b)(2)(C)(i). A party or lawyer responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena therefore must 

take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the 

subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). In turn, the Court “must protect a person who is neither a 

party nor a party’s officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(d)(2)(B)(ii). The Court may modify or quash a subpoena that subjects a person to undue 

burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv). On a Rule 45 motion to quash a subpoena, the moving 

party has the burden of persuasion, but the party issuing the subpoena must demonstrate that the 

discovery sought is relevant. EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2012 WL 

1980361, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2012).

Having reviewed Defendant’s request and the information sought in the subpoena 

(attached as Exhibit A to Defendant’s request), the Court finds it seeks information that is both 

relevant to Defendant’s defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Further, Defendant has 

taken reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on Mr. Evans. See Murphy 

Decl. ¶¶ 3-6. Finally, although he was served with the subpoena over five months ago, Mr. Evans 

has not sought to quash or modify the subpoena. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Mr. Evans to 

produce the records requested in the subpoena by June 30, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01772-MEJ Document 50 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 2