Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00209/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00209-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 07cv209

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHANIE BOWLER, Civil No. 07cv209 BTM (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS’

SUBPOENAS

v.

LANTER EYE CARE AND SURGERY, a

corporation, and EARL E. LANTER, M.D., an

individual,

Defendants.

On January 9, 2008, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference on Plaintiff’s motion to

quash Defendants’ subpoenas. Joshua Gruenberg, Esq., and Kimberly Ahrens, Esq., appeared for

Plaintiff. Scott Witlin, Esq., and Traci Park, Esq., appeared for Defendants.

On or about December 20, 2007, Defendants served subpoenas on SBC Global and Yahoo! for

the production of documents regarding email accounts registered to Plaintiff. Neither subpoenaed party

is located in this judicial district and it is the Court’s understanding that at this time neither subpoenaed

party has objected to the subpoenas. Plaintiff, however, objected on the basis that the subpoenas sought

irrelevant, personal and confidential information, including attorney-client communications and moved

this Court for an order quashing the subpoenas or in the alternative for an order allowing Plaintiff to first

inspect and screen any responsive documents for privilege prior to the production to Defendants. 

Having considered the submissions of the parties and the arguments of counsel, it is HEREBY 

ORDERED that, absent any objections raised by the subpoenaed parties, which should properly be

Case 3:07-cv-00209-BTM-CAB Document 27 Filed 01/09/08 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 07cv209

addressed to the judicial districts in which they reside, the motion to quash is GRANTED in Part and

DENIED in Part. Production of responsive documents, if any, shall be made to counsel for Plaintiff to

afford Plaintiff the opportunity to review the responsive documents for privilege and redact any such

documents prior to production to Defendants.

 Following production of the responsive documents by SBC Global and Yahoo!, Plaintiff’s

counsel will notify both Defendants and the Court of the scope of the production and further instructions

will be issued with regard to the production to Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 9, 2008

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00209-BTM-CAB Document 27 Filed 01/09/08 Page 2 of 2