Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03444/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03444-35/pdf.json

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

---

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 holding of this court is limited to the facts and particular circumstances underlying

the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK LESLIE, ET AL.,

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 07-03444 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

LONCHAR’S MOTION TO QUASH

SUBPOENA AND PRECLUDE USE

OF DOCUMENTS OBTAINED

PURSUANT THERETO 

 

[Docket No. 227]

Defendant Kenneth E. Lonchar moves to quash a subpoena and preclude the use of any

documents obtained pursuant to that subpoena. Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission

opposes the motion. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b) and the parties’ own papers, the motion is

taken under submission. Having reviewed the papers and considered the arguments of counsel,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Lonchar’s motion is granted.1

 

On December 11, 2009, the court, inter alia, extended the discovery cut-off to December

16, 2009 at 5PM PST. (“December 11, 2009 Order”).

On December 16, 2009, plaintiff SEC served a subpoena on non-party Arizona State

University seeking information regarding any past enrollment and/or registration of defendant

Case 4:07-cv-03444-CW Document 260 Filed 02/11/10 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 Although the subpoena is dated December 17, 2009, the SEC asserts that it was timely

served before the discovery cut-off on December 16, 2009 at 5PM PST. SEC’s Opp. at 6. It

states that the subpoena was mistakenly dated December 17, 2009 by counsel in haste. Id. 

Defendant Lonchar disputes whether the subpoena was timely served. Based on the

representations by the SEC, the court will find that the subpoena was timely served.

ORDER, page 2

Lonchar there.2

 The university promptly responded to the subpoena in two successive letters

(dated December 17, 2009 and December 18, 2009, respectively) stating, in sum, that a records

search had not shown any prior attendance or registration whatsoever by defendant Lonchar.

Notwithstanding the dispute by the parties regarding the service date of the subpoena, the

return dates for the two successive letters occurred one and two days after the discovery cut-off. 

Additionally, plaintiff SEC realized afterwards that it had failed to timely serve defendant

Lonchar with notice of the subpoena pursuant to Rule 45(b)(1). On December 18, 2009(two

days after the discovery cut-off), plaintiff SEC served defendant Lonchar with the subpoena to

non-party Arizona State University and its two responses. 

Civ. L.R. 26-2 states that “ . . . [a] ‘discovery cut-off’ is the date by which all responses

to written discovery are due.” It further states that “[d]iscovery requests that call for responses

or depositions after the applicable discovery cut-off are not enforceable, except by order of the

Court for good cause shown.” Id. See also, Padgett v. City of Monte Sereno, et al., 2006 WL

1141265 *1 (N.D. Cal.))(“‘Good cause’ for relief from the rule requires not only that there be

good reason for the questions in the abstract, but good reasons that they could not have been

propounded within the normal time requirements.”); and Burke v. County of Alameda, et al.,

2007 WL 2261542 *1 (N.D. Cal.)). Moreover, the Commentary to the local rule notes that

“[c]ounsel should initiate discovery requests and notice depositions sufficiently in advance of the

cut-off date to comply with this local rule.” Civ. L.R. 26-2, Commentary.

Before a subpoena for production of documents, electronically stored information, or

tangible things or the inspection of premises before trial is served, a notice must be served on

each party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). The 1991 Advisory Committee Notes state that “[t]he

purpose of such notice is to afford other parties an opportunity to object to the production or

inspection, or to serve a demand for additional documents or things.” 

Case 4:07-cv-03444-CW Document 260 Filed 02/11/10 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

 3 The court makes this ruling without determining whether 18 U.S.C. §1621 (perjury

generally) may later be applicable. Moreover, the court makes no determination as to whether

documents obtained pursuant to the SEC’s subpoena may later be used to impeach defendant

Lonchar in the event he testifies at trial.

ORDER, page 3

Pursuant to the December 11, 2009 Order, the discovery cut-off was December 16, 2009

5PM PST. Even assuming that the subpoena to Arizona State University was timely served by

plaintiff SEC, it set a return date for after the discovery cut-off. Plaintiff SEC discusses at length

the relevance of the proposed documents it received from the university but neglects to show

good cause why the subpoena was not served sufficiently in advance to allow for a response

prior to the discovery cut-off. Additionally, plaintiff SEC never sought relief from the court to

extend the discovery cut-off to allow for a timely response to the subpoena. And plaintiff SEC

did not serve notice of the subpoena until after the non-party had already responded. Based on

the above, plaintiff SEC’s subpoena to Arizona State University is quashed and it is precluded

from using any documents obtained pursuant to the subpoena.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2010

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03444-CW Document 260 Filed 02/11/10 Page 3 of 3