Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00280/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00280-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

cal 

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\2 Orders to be filed\09cv280.Order.MTQ.wpd 1 09cv0280

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTURY SURETY COMPANY, an Ohio

Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MASTER DESIGN DRYWALL, INC.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.09cv0280 LAB (AJB)

Order Granting Motion to 

Quash Subpoenas

[Doc. Nos. 35 and 36]

Mary Kathawa and Pro Wall Lath and Plaster have filed Motions to Quash Subpoenas under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 issued by Plaintiff or in the alternative move for a protective order

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The subpoenas seek production of documents over an

eleven (11) year period from 1999 to the present. Pro Wall Lath and Plaster (hereinafter “Pro Wall”)

and Mary Kathawa contend that they have produced all relevant and non-privileged documents

requested for the period 1999 to 2003, but argue that some of the documents sought from 1999 to 2003

and for 2003 to present are not relevant. impose an undue burden, and should be quashed. 

Relevant Background

This litigation was brought by Century Surety Company (hereinafter “Century Surety”) seeking

recision of general liability insurance policy CCP 221293 issued to Master Design Drywall Inc dba

Pacific Lath and Plaster (“Master Design”) on November 18, 2002. The policy was in effect from

November 1, 2002 through November 1, 2003. Century Surety is seeking recision on the grounds that

Case 3:09-cv-00280-LAB-AJB Document 41 Filed 06/02/10 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\2 Orders to be filed\09cv280.Order.MTQ.wpd 2 09cv0280

the Defendant, Master Design, made material misrepresentations during the application and underwriting process, which covered the period of 1999 to 2003. 

Pro Wall, while identified in the caption of this case, was dismissed from this litigation without

having to answer as a defendant, because it has its own insurance policies unrelated to those issued by

Century Surety Company.

Ms. Kathawa is the President of Master Design and the owner and President of Pro Wall.

Discussion

In addition to the discovery standards under Rule 26 incorporated by Rule 45, Rule 45 itself

provides that “on timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the

subpoena if it . . . subjects a person to undue burden.” Rule 45(3)(A). Of course, “if the sought-after

documents are not relevant, nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, then any

burden whatsoever imposed would be by definition ‘undue.’ ” Compaq Computer Corp. v. Packard Bell

Elec., Inc., 163 F.R.D. 329, 335-36 (N.D. Cal.1995). Underlying the protections of Rule 45 is the

recognition that “the word ‘non-party’ serves as a constant reminder of the reasons for the limitations

that characterize ‘third-party’ discovery.” Dart Indus. Co. v. Westwood Chem. Co., 649 F.2d 646, 649

(9th Cir.1980) (citations omitted). Thus, a court determining the propriety of a subpoena balances the

relevance of the discovery sought, the requesting party's need, and the potential hardship to the party

subject to the subpoena. Heat & Control, 785 F.2d at 1024; Gonzales v. Google, 234 F.R.D. 674, 680

(N.D. Cal.2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 45(c)(3)(B)(iii). Any information sought by means of a

subpoena must therefore be relevant to the claims and defenses in the underlying case. More precisely,

the information sought must be “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.” Rule 26(b). This

requirement is liberally construed to permit the discovery of information which ultimately may not be

admissible at trial. Over broad subpoenas seeking irrelevant information may be quashed or modified.

See, e.g., Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 637 (C.D. Cal.2005) (quashing subpoena seeking

the production of all purchasing information where the underlying contract dispute was limited to a

particular geographic region); W.E. Green v. Baca, 219 F.R.D. 485, 490 (C.D. Cal.2003) (providing a

survey of cases where in limiting the scope of a subpoena, district courts “effectively sustain[ ] an

objection that the requests are vague, ambiguous, or overbroad in part, and overrules in part”).

Case 3:09-cv-00280-LAB-AJB Document 41 Filed 06/02/10 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\2 Orders to be filed\09cv280.Order.MTQ.wpd 3 09cv0280

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds the scope of Century Surety’s requests overbroad and

burdensome on their face as they seek documents from 1999 to present, when the policy was in effect

from November 1, 2002 to November 1, 2003. Despite the Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, the

documents sought beyond 2003 are not relevant to the claims or defenses presented in this case and the

undue burden that such production would impose on these third parties far outweighs any perceived

benefit. As such, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART the Motions to Quash the Subpoenas issued to

Mary Kathawa and Pro Wall for all documents sought for 2004 to present, and hereby modifies and

limits the time period for all requests at issue to 1999 to 2003.

The Court has reviewed the document requests for the subpoenas to Ms. Kathawa and Pro Wall

and notes that these parties have agreed to produce documents for the time period of 1999 to 2003

responsive to Req. Nos. 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 21 for Ms. Kathawa and to Req. Nos. 1, 3, 9, 10,

11, 15, 16 and 17 for Pro Wall. If these documents have not already been produced, Ms. Kathawa and

Pro Wall are ORDERED to produce them on or before June 15, 2010. With regard to Req. Nos. 7, 8,

and 9 directed to Ms. Kathawa and Req. Nos. 4, 5 and 14 to Pro Wall, the parties have stated that no

responsive documents exist to these requests.

Plaintiff, Century Surety, states that it seeks the requested information to clarify what entities

were engaged in lath and plaster and interior drywall work at what time, sharing resources and

employees. The Plaintiff has identified two addresses, 360 South Spruce Street, Escondido, CA 92023

and Post Office Box 3058, Escondido, CA 92033 and alleges that Ms. Kathawa operated more than one

business which shared resources and employees and worked on the same projects performing lath and

plaster and drywall work out of these offices/addresses. 

Ms. Kathawa has objected to the scope of Req. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16 and 20 which seek

information with regard to any entities run or managed by her and seeks to limits her responses for these

requests to Pro Wall, Pacific Lath and Plaster and Master Design. Ms. Kathawa has also objected to the

scope of Req. Nos. 14, 15 and 17 which seek a broad range of business records and has agreed to

produce only Articles of Incorporation. 

Case 3:09-cv-00280-LAB-AJB Document 41 Filed 06/02/10 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\2 Orders to be filed\09cv280.Order.MTQ.wpd 4 09cv0280

Upon review of the moving papers and requests issued to Ms. Kathawa, the Court hereby

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Ms. Kathawa’s Motion to Quash and hereby modifies and

limits Req. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20 to: 1) businesses operating out of either of the two

above-identified addresses; 2) who performed lath and plaster or drywall work; and 3) during the period

of 1999 to 2003. Ms. Kathawa’s other objections are overruled and she is hereby ORDERED to produce

all responsive documents to modified Req. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20. If these documents

have not already been produced, Ms. Kathawa is ORDERED to produce them on or before June 15,

2010. 

Upon review of the moving papers and requests issued to Pro Wall, the Court hereby GRANTS

IN PART and DENIES IN PART Pro Wall’s Motion to Quash and hereby modifies and limits Req. Nos.

2, 6, 8, 12 and 13 to lath and plaster and drywall work during the period from 1999 to 2003. With

regard to Req. No. 7 which seeks pleadings, discovery and correspondence for all litigation that Pro

Wall has been involved in, either as a party or consultant, the Court finds this request overly broad and

burdensome as written and hereby modifies and limits the request to pleadings where the underlying

cause of action occurred between 1999 and 2003. Pro Wall’s other objections are overruled and Pro

Wall is hereby ORDERED to produce all responsive documents to modified Req. Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 12 and

13. If these documents have not already been produced, Pro Wall is ORDERED to produce them on or

before June 15, 2010. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 1, 2010

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-00280-LAB-AJB Document 41 Filed 06/02/10 Page 4 of 4