Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03228/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-03228-35/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

1

 The subpoena in this case called for Plaintiff’s counsel to sit for depositions to inquire into

their alleged (in)adequacy to serve as class counsel in this putative class case, and also called for a

large document production, including “all documents pertaining to each class action lawsuit in

which you have served as class counsel,” and “all operative pleadings from each lawsuit that you

have taken through to a jury or non-jury trial.” See Docket No. 281. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEATHER L. NEWTON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN DEBT SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-11-3228 EMC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE

ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND

ORDER OF REFERENCE TO CHIEF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SPERO FOR

POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF

SANCTIONS 

(Docket No. 291)

On March 17, 2015, the parties litigated a discovery dispute before Chief Magistrate Judge

Spero. See Docket Nos. 283-84 and 291-1 (Hearing Transcript). At the hearing, Judge Spero

expressly concluded that the subpoena and document requests served by Defendants on Plaintiff’s

counsel amounted to “harassment,” and further noted he had “never seen anything like it” in his

many years on the bench.1

 Hearing Tr. at 4:25, 9:6-7. Judge Spero consequently quashed the

subpoena. See Docket No. 284.

On March 31, 2015, Defendants filed an objection to Judge Spero’s discovery order. Docket

No. 291. The Court has reviewed the objection and finds it meritless. Notably, Defendants’

objection fails to cite even a single case that has enforced the type of plainly overbroad subpoena

Case 3:11-cv-03228-EMC Document 293 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 2
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

served here. The Court therefore affirms Judge Spero’s well reasoned decision to quash the relevant

subpoena. 

The Court further refers this matter back to Judge Spero to determine the appropriate

sanction for Defendants’ conduct, if any. The Court notes that this is not the first time Defendants in

this case have sought to improperly re-litigate meritless issues, see Newton v. American Debt Servs.,

-- F. Supp. 3d --, 2014 WL 7183930, at *12 n.16 (N.D. Cal. 2014), and notes with concern that

Defendants failed to comply with Judge Spero’s standing orders in litigating this discovery dispute. 

 This order disposes of Docket No. 291.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-03228-EMC Document 293 Filed 04/15/15 Page 2 of 2