Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00723/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00723-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331ed Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

1 

17-CV-723-CAB-WVG 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANDRE SMITH, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

ATT, INC., et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 17-CV-723-CAB-WVG 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA 

[ECF NO. 58] 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Andre Smith’s motion to quash two subpoenas 

issued on Crawford High School and Darnell Charter School. For the reasons that follow, 

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 

II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 

 On or about June 7, 2018, Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company served 

subpoenas on Crawford High School and Darnell Charter School. (Mot., ECF No. 58-1 at 

2:25-28.) The subpoenas sought the attendance records for Monae Jones. (Def’s Opp’n, 

ECF No. 60 at 6:11-13.) On June 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash the subpoenas. 

(ECF No. 50.) However, the Court rejected Plaintiff’s motion for failing to secure a hearing 

date. (ECF No. 51.) On July 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed the present motion to quash, after 

properly securing a hearing date. On July 12, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file further 

Case 3:17-cv-00723-CAB-WVG Document 61 Filed 08/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

17-CV-723-CAB-WVG 

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

briefing that articulated his standing to bring the present motion. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff 

failed to file further briefing. On August 3, 2018, Defendant timely filed its opposition. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 45(d)(3) permits a court to quash or modify 

a subpoena. This may be done when the subpoena “requires disclosure of privileged or 

other protected matter,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii), or to “protect a person subject to 

or affected by a subpoena,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(B). However, “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.” California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Chico Scrap 

Metal, Inc., 299 F.R.D. 638, 643 (E.D. Cal. 2014). 

IV. DISCUSSION 

 Here, Plaintiff is seeking to quash subpoenas served on two third parties for records 

pertaining to Monae Jones. Plaintiff’s motion in no way articulates any claims of privilege 

relating to the documents being sought. Moreover, despite being offered the opportunity to 

demonstrate his standing, Plaintiff failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion for lack of standing. 

V. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 

motion to quash the subpoenas served on Crawford High School and Darnell Charter 

School.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 17, 2018 

                                                                

1

 In his motion, Plaintiff also moves for fees pursuant to Rule 45(c). (Mot. at 6:19-28.) Rule 45(c) 

contains no provision supporting this request. For that reason, the Court would deny Plaintiff’s request. 

However, since Plaintiff did not prevail in his motion, the Court DENIES his request for fees on that 

ground. 

Case 3:17-cv-00723-CAB-WVG Document 61 Filed 08/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2