Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04532/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04532-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 Defendants moved to shorten time and noticed a requested hearing date of May 26, 2006. Defendants did

not notice a hearing date "not less than 35 days after service of the motion" pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-2. In the event the court

denied their motion to shorten time, Defendants would have had to re-notice their motion for a new date. Rather, defendants

should file their moving papers with a noticed hearing date "not less than 35 days after service of the motion" accompanied

by the motion to shorten time. In the event, the court grants the motion to shorten time, the parties would be notified of the

new hearing date. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

STACY JAMES, WILLIAM HAAG and

MICHAEL SCHRIBER,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

IGNATIUS A. PIAZZA and FRONT SIGHT

MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED dba

FRONT SIGHT FIREARMS TRAINING

INSTITUTE,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-04532 JW (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO QUASH NON-PARTY

SUBPOENA; ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SHORTEN

TIME 

[Docket No. 33]

Defendants Ignatius A. Piazza and Front Sight Management Incorporated dba Front

Sight Firearms Training Institute (collectively "Defendants") move to quash the non-party

subpoena issued to Ted W. Carlson, or in the alternative, to stay the non-party subpoena. 

Defendants further move to shorten time for hearing of their motion to quash.1 Having

reviewed the briefs filed by Defendants, 

Case 5:05-cv-04532-JW Document 36 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and particular circumstances underlying the present motion.

3 As the parties have participated in a conference pursuant to Rule 26(f) and the court has held a case

management conference, discovery is open. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Alternatively, Defendants may seek a motion to stay

discovery. 

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to quash the non-party subpoena

to Ted W. Carlson is GRANTED without prejudice;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion to shorten time is DENIED as

moot.2

Defendants move to quash the non-party subpoena issued to Ted W. Carlson on the

grounds that the deposition of Mr. Carlson is not relevant to the merits of the case and that

the discovery period has not opened.3 

Plaintiffs issued their non-party subpoena to Mr. Carlson from the U.S. District Court

in the Northern District of California. As stated in the non-party subpoena issued to Mr.

Carlson, the deposition is scheduled to take place in Orange County, California. A subpoena

for attendance at a deposition must issue from the court for the district where the deposition

is to be taken. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2)(B). Therefore, the non-party subpoena issued to Mr.

Carlson was issued from the wrong district and Defendants' motion to quash is granted

without prejudice. Because Defendants' motion to quash has been granted, Defendants'

motion to shorten time is denied as moot.

Prior to re-noticing the deposition of Mr. Carlson, the parties shall meet and confer

pursuant to the local rules. See, e.g., Civ. L.R. 30-1. Absent agreement of the parties or

further leave of the court, in the event Defendants file a motion to stay discovery, any noticed

deposition of Mr. Carlson would be stayed pending resolution of the motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/24/2006 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:05-cv-04532-JW Document 36 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Case 5:05-cv-04532-JW Document 36 Filed 05/24/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Case 5:05-cv-04532-JW Document 36 Filed 05/24/06 Page 4 of 4