Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07592/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07592-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENIKO PRAKASH,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PULSENT CORPORATION,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-7592 SC (BZ)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE

Sun Life has moved for an Order To Show Cause Why a

Contempt Citation should not issue against Verseon for failing

to comply with one or more subpoenas it served on Verseon. In

its opposition Verseon first contends that the subpoenas are

“fatally defective” because no witness fees were tendered at

the time the subpoenas were served as required by Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1). Sun Life does not dispute that

it failed to tender the fees but asserts that the Rule “only

applies to deposition subpoenas where a person’s attendance is

commanded” and these subpoenas simply required the production

of documents.

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 145 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 3
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

As to the subpoenas that simply required Verseon to

produce documents, it does not appear that a witness fee was

necessary. Practice Commentary C45-19 states “if the person

served with the subpoena is required to attend somewhere, the

fee must be tendered.” The fee in question is that provided

by 28 U.S.C. §1821 which requires that a fee be tendered to a

witness required to appear at trial or deposition. Verseon

was not required to attend any hearing. None of the cases

cited by Verseon involved subpoenas which only required the

production of documents. 

The court is troubled by the way that discovery has

proceeded in this matter. Although Sun Life now complains

about the response to the subpoena served on May 18, 2007,

this complaint comes on the eve of trial. The court notes

that the category of documents sought in the May 18, 2007

subpoena is fairly broad given that the principal issue on the

cross-complaint is whether fraud was committed in 2003,

presenting a proportionality issue under 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). 

The court is also troubled by the fact that there seems to be

no clear record of the search that Verseon conducted in

response to the subpoena and that documents which appear to

have been called are only now appearing and even now

incrementally. 

In the interest of expediting the trial, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that by March 14, 2008 an officer or other senior

employee of Verseon, such as Mr. Ahuja, but not one of the

plaintiffs, shall conduct a search for the documents called

for by categories 1, 3, and 5 of the November 26, 2007

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 145 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 3
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 court is not prepared to further enforce the

December 5, 2007 subpoena without an explanation from Sun Life

as to whether a witness fee was tendered when that subpoena

was served and, if not, why it was not since it required a

witness to attend a deposition.

3

subpoena and file a written declaration attesting to the

search that was conducted and to the production of any

responsive documents that were not previously produced.1

Except as so GRANTED, the Sun Life application for an

order to show cause is DENIED. 

Dated: March 6, 2008

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\PRAKASH V. PULSENT\DISC6.ORDER.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-07592-SC Document 145 Filed 03/06/08 Page 3 of 3