Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01299/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01299-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES SECURITIES &

EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 SUDOL ET AL,

Defendants. /

No. C-05-01299 JSW (EDL)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants’ Motion to Quash a subpoena issued by Plaintiff to Motorola, Inc. came on for

hearing on January 31, 2006. Counsel for Plaintiff appeared at the hearing, and Defendants

appeared in propria persona. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES as moot

Defendants’ Motion to Quash.

II. DISCUSSION

Given that third party Motorola, Inc. already produced the documents that are the object of

this Motion to Quash, the Court finds that the Motion must be denied as moot. Defendants also asks

the Court to sanction Plaintiff and to exclude the documents on the ground that the discovery was

commenced before the parties’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference, and on the ground

that Plaintiff did not serve Defendants with a copy of the subpoena in time to allow them to object to

the production. The Court accepts the representations by Plaintiff’s counsel in open court that they

discussed with several Defendants’ then counsel their intention to seek early discovery from

Motorola, Inc., and were at least under the reasonable impression that an agreement had been

Case 3:05-cv-01299-JSW Document 28 Filed 02/02/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

reached with them on this issue. Defendants only point to a hearsay statement by one of their exattorneys that he did not agree. 

The Court is disturbed by the fact that Plaintiff did not serve Defendants with a copy of the

subpoena until more than two months after it was issued. Although it accepts Plaintiff’s assurance

that this omission was unintentional, it is sloppy, as Plaintiff’s new counsel readily acknowledged at

the hearing. 

The remedy Defendants seek – exclusion of the documents – is more properly addressed to

Judge White, who will decide what documents obtained from Motorola, if any, to admit at trial. The

government’s asserted basis for seeking to introduce them appears somewhat weak at first blush

(although this Court has not attempted to make any determination on the evidentiary issue, which

would be very premature). Also, Judge White may take into account the failure to effect proper

service on Defendants if he wishes to do so. 

III. CONCLUSION

Defendants’ Motion to Quash is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01299-JSW Document 28 Filed 02/02/06 Page 2 of 2