Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01318/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01318-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Account Receivable

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY CRAYTON )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ROCHESTER MEDICAL )

CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation )

and JOHN DOE DISTRIBUTOR, )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:07-CV-1318 OWW GSA

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

(Document 68)

On November 12, 2009, Defendant, Rochester Medical Corporation (“Defendant” or

“ROCM”) filed a Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum issued on October 13,

2009. Plaintiff Timothy Crayton (“Plaintiff”) filed an Opposition on December 2, 2009. (Doc.

81). Defendant Rochester Medical Corporation filed a Reply on December 14, 2009. (Doc. 90).

The hearing on the matter scheduled for January 15, 2010 at 9:30 was vacated pursuant to Local

Rule 230 (g) and (l). Upon a review of all of the pleadings, Defendant’s Motion to Quash is

GRANTED.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a wheelchair paralytic who is an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison. The

matter arises from Plaintiff’s allegations that he was injured when he used an Ultraflex Silicone

Self-Adhering Male External Catheter manufactured by Defendant. In an Amended Complaint

1

Case 1:07-cv-01318-OWW-GSA Document 110 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 4
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

filed on September 10, 2008, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for strict products liability,

negligent products liability, fraudulent misrepresentations, and breach of implied warranty of

fitness. (Doc. 34). 

A scheduling conference was held on March 27, 2009. (Doc. 50). On March 30, 2009,

the Court issued a scheduling order requiring that non-expert discovery be completed no later

than September 1, 2009. (Doc. 55). Pursuant to Defendant’s ex parte request, on September 14,

2009, the Court issued an order extending the non-expert discovery deadline for Defendant until

September 20, 2009. (Docs. 59, 62). On September 23, 2009, the Court also extended

Plaintiff’s non-expert discovery deadline until September 25, 2009. (Doc. 61, 64). 

On October 19, 2009, Plaintiff attempted to serve a Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to

the Chief Executive Officer of ROCM, Mr. Anthony Conway. The subpoena requested the

production of various documents including copies of over two hundred consumer complaints, the

current address of ROCM’s insurance company, the name and address of the distributor and

supplier who supplied the product to Kern Valley State Prison, and records or documents that

show that Defendant’s product changes as a result of age and temperature storage. Defendant is

moving to quash the subpoena on the basis that it : 1) is improperly prepared and served, 2) is

untimely, 3) seeks the disclosure of privileged information, 4) is burdensome, harassing and

oppressive, and 5) that the information requested has already been produced. Plaintiff has

opposed the motion.

DISCUSSION

A. Issuance of the Subpoena

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(3) governs the issuance of subpoenas and provides

as follows :

Issued by Whom. The Clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a

party who requests it. That party must complete it before service. An attorney may also

issue and sign a subpoena as an officer of:

(A) a court in which the attorney is authorized, to practice, or

2

Case 1:07-cv-01318-OWW-GSA Document 110 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 4
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

(B) a court for a district where a deposition is to be taken or production is to be

made, if the attorney is authorized to practice in the court where the action is

pending.

In this case, Plaintiff has attempted to serve a subpoena that was not signed by the Clerk

of the Court. The two signatures on the document include the Plaintiff’s name as the attorney of

record, and Shauntee Rogers, an individual at Kern State Prison. Although Plaintiff contends

that he is the attorney of record in the case, neither he, nor Shauntee Rogers is the Clerk of the

Court, nor is either an attorney authorized to practice law. Therefore, neither individual had

authority to issue the subpoena. Accordingly, the subpoena shall be quashed on that basis. 1

B. Untimeliness

In addition to being improperly issued, the scheduling order required that all non-expert

discovery be completed no later than later than September 1, 2009. Pursuant to Defendant’s ex

parte request, on September 14, 2009, the Court issued subsequent orders extending the nonexpert discovery deadline for Defendant until September 20, 2009, and extending Plaintiff’s nonexpert discovery deadline until September 25, 2009. (Docs. 62 and 64). Therefore, Plaintiff’s

non-expert discovery should have been requested prior to September 25, 2009. In this instance,

Plaintiff did not prepare or serve the subpoena until October 13, 2009, which is past the nonexpert discovery deadline. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(2) and (3) requires district courts to enter scheduling orders to

establish deadlines for, among other things, “to file motions” and “to complete discovery.” 

Modifications of the scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot be reasonably met despite the diligence of

the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F. 3d 1080,

1087 (9 Cir. 2002) th quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F. 2d 604, 607 (9 Cir. th

1992)). 

The Court also notes that the subpoena had another individual’s name on the top which Plaintiff has

1

crossed out and inserted Defendant’s name and the name of Anthony Conway. It is unclear whether this form was

issued in another case.

3

Case 1:07-cv-01318-OWW-GSA Document 110 Filed 01/25/10 Page 3 of 4
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

In this case, Plaintiff did not move to amend the discovery deadline beyond the Court’s

order, nor has he attempted to establish due diligence for such a request. Therefore, the subpoena

request is untimely. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that the discovery deadline

in the court’s scheduling order is November 1, 2009. Although the scheduling order indicates that

all discovery must be completed by November 1, 2009, it also clearly indicates that the non-expert

discovery deadline is September 1, 2009. Compare pg. 11 and pg. 12 of Doc. 55. Additionally,

Plaintiff previously filed a request to amend the non-expert discovery deadline from September 1,

2009 until September 25, 2009. Pursuant to that request, the Court issued a subsequent order

extending Plaintiff’s non-expert discovery deadline until September 25, 2009. (Doc. 64). 

Accordingly, the issuance of the subpoena was untimely and Defendant’s motion shall be granted. 

CONCLUSION

Because the subpoena was not properly issued and was untimely, it is not necessary to

address the other arguments raised in Defendant’s Motion to Quash. Based on the above,

Defendant’s Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s subpoena is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 22, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:07-cv-01318-OWW-GSA Document 110 Filed 01/25/10 Page 4 of 4