Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01554/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01554-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 Motion appears twice on the docket. Both entries are identical, and there is no reason

specified for the redundancy. 

- 1 - [Case# for Footer]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY DANIELS, Civil No. 10-cv-1554-IEG (POR)

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION

SUBPOENA

[Doc. 1, 2]

v.

LIFELOCK, INC. MARKETING AND

SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION,

Defendant.

On July 26, 2010, Plaintiff initiated the instant action by filing a Motion to Quash the

Deposition Subpoena of Billy Daniels. [Docs. 1, 2.]1 The underlying litigation is a multi-district

class action lawsuit currently pending in the District of Arizona. (Case No. 08-MD-1977 (D. Az.).) 

In March 2010, the case settled, and shortly thereafter, District Judge Mary H. Murguia

preliminarily approved the settlement agreement and corresponding plan for class action notice. (Id.

at Doc. 159.) Furthermore, Judge Murguia scheduled the final approval hearing for August 10,

2010. (Id.) After receiving notice, class member Billy Daniels filed an Objection to the proposed

settlement. (Id. at Doc. 187.) Counsel representing the class of Plaintiffs (“Class counsel”) then

noticed Daniels for a deposition to take place on July 30, 2010.

On July 29, 2010, the Honorable Louisa S Porter held a telephonic Discovery Conference in

this matter. Appearing were: Darrell Palmer, Esq., and Janine Menhennet, Esq., counsel for Billy

Case 3:10-cv-01554-IEG-POR Document 8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 2
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 - [Case# for Footer]

Daniels; Leonard Aragon, Esq., Class counsel; and Peter Antonucci, Esq., counsel for Defendants in

the underlying class action. After consideration of the parties’ oral argument, and based on a

thorough review of the briefing and relevant case law, the Court hereby GRANTS Daniels’ motion

to quash the deposition subpoena for two reasons. First, Class counsel failed to seek permission of

the district court to notice Daniels’ deposition. Although a court may, in its discretion, grant

discovery to “assist it in determining the fairness and adequacy of the settlement,” there is no

absolute right to such discovery. See, e.g., Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 2008 WL 346417,

at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Thus, a litigant must request permission from the court before initiating the

discovery. Furthermore, this request should be presented first to the court conducting the final

approval hearing. However, Class counsel did not obtain, or even seek, permission from either this

Court or the District of Arizona. Second, discovery is likely premature pending the final approval

hearing. At this hearing, the court will evaluate the objections, and the litigants will have an

opportunity to meaningfully participate and present argument. If, at that time, Judge Murguia finds

there is a need for further development of the facts, Judge Murguia may allow discovery.

In light of the foregoing, the deposition subpoena is hereby QUASHED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 29, 2010

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: The Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez

All parties 

Case 3:10-cv-01554-IEG-POR Document 8 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 2