Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00731/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00731-8/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHAKONG THAO, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LYNCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0731 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 This case is before the court on defendant Swarthout’s motion to quash (ECF No. 40), 

which plaintiffs oppose (ECF No. 44). The parties have filed a joint discovery statement in 

compliance with Local Rule 251 and the undersigned’s standing order.1

 ECF No. 50. 

I. Relevant Background 

Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against Swarthout, a prison psychiatrist; Lynch, 

warden at California State Prison (CSP)-Sacramento; and Does 1-10, in which they alleged the 

defendants were responsible for the death of their son/brother, who was murdered by his cellmate, 

Negrete. ECF No. 6. Swarthout and Lynch moved to dismiss the complaint (ECF Nos. 8, 18), 

and the motion was granted as to Lynch (ECF No. 30). To date, no Doe defendants have been 

1

 The parties are advised that the undersigned’s standing order has been updated to reflect 

amendments to Local Rule 251 that provide that joint discovery statements are to be filed at least 

fourteen days before the scheduled hearing date. 

Case 2:21-cv-00731-DC-AC Document 58 Filed 03/13/23 Page 1 of 5
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 

substituted with a named individual,2 and this case currently proceeds on plaintiffs’ claims against 

defendant Swarthout. 

Plaintiffs served two subpoenas and a deposition notice on non-parties California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and CSP-Sacramento seeking production 

of five categories of documents and to depose the person(s) most knowledgeable in eleven 

categories. ECF No. 52. All of the specified categories seek information related to housing 

decisions generally and to the specific decision to house the decedent with Negrete. Id. at 5-8. 

Defendant Swarthout seeks to quash the subpoenas on the grounds that they seek 

disclosure of protected matters, plaintiffs have already disregarded the protective order in this 

case, the discovery sought is irrelevant to the claims against Swarthout, the information sought 

could be obtained through less burdensome methods, and the expenditure of time and money 

required to attend and order transcripts for up to eleven depositions would impose a clear burden 

on defendant. ECF No. 40; ECF No. 50 at 2-5. 

Plaintiff opposes the motion and argues that defendant has no standing to bring a motion 

to quash, the discovery sought is relevant to the claims against the Doe defendants, interrogatories 

to defendant would be unlikely to yield the information sought and if provided would be hearsay 

at best, and the requests are not burdensome as each category would require only brief 

questioning of the deponent. ECF No. 44 at 2-6, 10-16; ECF No. 50 at 7-21. Plaintiffs also seek 

to compel compliance with the subpoenas and sanctions against defense counsel. ECF No. 44 at 

6-8, 15-17; ECF No. 50 at 7, 20-21. 

//// 

2

 In ruling on the motion to dismiss, the district judge noted that 

[i]f a defendant’s identity is unknown when the complaint is filed, 

plaintiffs have an opportunity through discovery to identify them. 

Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). But the 

court will dismiss such unnamed defendants if discovery clearly 

would not uncover their identities or if the complaint would clearly 

be dismissed on other grounds. Id. The federal rules also provide 

for dismissing unnamed defendants that, absent good cause, are not 

served within 90 days of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

ECF No. 30 at 1 n.1. 

Case 2:21-cv-00731-DC-AC Document 58 Filed 03/13/23 Page 2 of 5
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 

II. Discussion 

A. Motion to Quash 

Defendant seeks to quash a Rule 45 subpoena issued by plaintiffs to non-parties CDCR 

and CSP-Sacramento. ECF No. 40. “As provided in Rule 45, a nonparty may be compelled to 

produce documents and tangible things or to permit an inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c). Rule 

45 permits a party to issue a subpoena commanding the person to whom it is directed to “attend 

and testify; produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in 

that person’s possession, custody, or control; or permit the inspection of premises.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). The recipient may object to a subpoena, or move to quash or modify it. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(b), 45(d)(3). 

The Ninth Circuit has yet to address the question of whether a party 

has standing to bring a motion to quash since usually only the 

subpoenaed non-party may move to quash. The general rule, 

however, is that a party has no standing to quash a subpoena served 

upon a third party, except as to claims of privilege relating to the 

documents being sought. 

Cal. Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc., 299 F.R.D. 638, 643 (E.D. Cal. 2014) 

(citing Windsor v. Martindale, 175 F.R.D. 665, 668 (D. Colo. 1997)). Under this general rule, 

defendant lacks standing to object to the subpoenas on grounds of relevance or undue burden, and 

to the extent she relies on such arguments, the motion is denied.3 See H.I.S.C., Inc. v. Franmar 

Int’l Imps., Ltd., No. 16-cv-480 BEN (WVG), 2018 WL 2095738, at *2-3, 2018 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 76879, at *6, 8 (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2018) (with respect to both subpoenas duces tecum and 

deposition subpoenas “[a] party has no standing to move to quash a subpoena on the ground that 

it is unduly burdensome when the non-party has not objected on that basis” (citations omitted)); 

G.K. Las Vegas Ltd. P’ship v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., No. 04-cv-1199 DAE GWF, 2007 WL 

119148, at *3, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97869, at *12 (D. Nev. Jan. 9, 2007) (“A party’s objection 

that the subpoena issued to the non-party seeks irrelevant information or imposes an undue 

3

 The court further notes that any argument that the number of depositions would be unduly 

burdensome is entirely speculative at this point, as there is no indication how many of the 

categories identified by plaintiffs would require a separate individual to be deposed. 

Case 2:21-cv-00731-DC-AC Document 58 Filed 03/13/23 Page 3 of 5
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 

burden on the nonparty are not grounds on which a party has standing to move to quash a 

subpoena issued to a non-party, especially where the non-party, itself, has not objected.” (citation 

omitted)). 

A party cannot seek to quash a Rule 45 subpoena except to the extent that it has “a 

personal right or privilege in the information sought to be disclosed.” Freed v. Home Depot 

U.S.A., Inc., No. 18-cv-359 BAS (LL), 2019 WL 582346, at *2, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23763, at 

*6 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2019) (quoting Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, No. 12-mc-80237 CRB (NC), 

2013 WL 4536808, at *4, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119622, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013)). To 

the extent defendant makes arguments regarding privacy or confidentiality concerns related to the 

discovery sought, it is clear that she is making an argument related to the privacy and security 

concerns of third parties and therefore does not have standing to raise these concerns.4

 These are, 

of course, all objections that the CDCR and CSP-Sacramento are free to raise, but they do not 

implicate any right or privilege belonging to defendant and her motion to quash lacks standing, 

and therefore must be denied. 

B. Motion to Compel 

To the extent plaintiffs are attempting to compel compliance with the subpoenas against 

the CDCR and CSP-Sacramento in conjunction with their opposition to the motion to quash, such 

a motion has not been properly identified as a cross-motion or separately noticed and is therefore 

not properly before this court. Plaintiffs’ putative motion to compel is a separate matter from the 

motion to quash, and therefore must be separately noticed in accordance with the applicable rules. 

The court further notes that it is not clear whether the non-parties have been properly served. 

Although the record reflects that defendant’s counsel has represented these entities on matters 

related to the subpoenas (ECF No. 40-1 at 1-2), he did not appear on their behalf on the record in 

this case until filing a supplement to plaintiffs’ request to seal documents (ECF No. 53). The 

non-parties’ appearance in this case occurred after plaintiffs filed their purported motion to 

4

 Despite defendant’s lack of standing to raise these concerns, the court is troubled by plaintiffs’ 

apparent violation of the protective order in this case based upon their assumption that because 

confidential documents were produced by the CDCR and CSP-Sacramento “they are viewable by 

anyone in CDCR and CSP-Sacramento.” ECF No. 50 at 34. 

Case 2:21-cv-00731-DC-AC Document 58 Filed 03/13/23 Page 4 of 5
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 

5 

compel (ECF No. 44), so they could not have been properly served through the court’s electronic 

filing system and there is no indication of any other service. For these reasons, the motion to 

compel will be denied without prejudice. Because plaintiffs’ motion to compel is being denied, 

their request for sanctions will also be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendant’s motion to quash (ECF No. 40) is DENIED for lack of standing; and 

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and request for sanctions (ECF No. 44) is DENIED 

without prejudice to a motion that is properly noticed and served. 

DATED: March 13, 2023 

Case 2:21-cv-00731-DC-AC Document 58 Filed 03/13/23 Page 5 of 5