Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01265/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01265-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TERRYLYN MCCAIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MANGHAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-01265-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Currently 

pending before the court are plaintiff’s (1) December 7, 2015, motion to quash; (2) December 9, 

2015, motion to quash; (3) and January 4, 2016, motion for clarification. The court will deny 

plaintiff’s motions because they are based on a fundamental misconception, that her California 

Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) records are irrelevant to this litigation. 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may “obtain discovery regarding any 

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). Relevancy is construed broadly to encompass “any matter that bears on, or that 

reasonably could lead to other matter[s] that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the 

case.” Chavez v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 206 F.R.D. 615, 619 (S.D. Ind. 2002) (internal 

quotations omitted). Where a non-party possesses potentially relevant information, the party 

seeking discovery may obtain a subpoena for the evidence pursuant to Rule 45. “The same broad 

Case 2:11-cv-01265-KJM-AC Document 209 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 4
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

scope of discovery set out in Rule 26 applies to the discovery that may be sought pursuant to Rule 

45.” AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1–1,058, 286 F.R.D. 39, 46 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing Watts v. 

S.E.C., 482 F.3d 501, 507 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). Any party that issues a subpoena must, however, 

“take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the 

subpoena.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). In addition, the court may modify or quash a subpoena that 

“requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter” or “subjects a person to undue 

burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). 

Although plaintiff’s motions to quash are somewhat unclear, they seem to request that the 

court quash subpoenas issued by defendants Mike’s Towing Service and Michael D. Olivarez 

(“Towing Defendants”) for her DMV records. ECF Nos. 194, 195. Plaintiff’s motions describe 

these subpoenas as if they were served upon her; however, the Towing Defendants opposition 

asserts they were served upon the DMV itself. ECF No. 200 at 5. Plaintiff claims that these 

subpoenas should be quashed because the documents they seek are confidential and, in any case, 

irrelevant to her civil rights claims against defendants. ECF Nos. 194, 195. Plaintiff also claims 

that the Towing Defendants’ request poses an undue burden upon her in light of her incarcerated 

status. Id. 

First, plaintiff is incorrect that her DMV records are irrelevant to this matter. Although 

plaintiff’s complaint alleges few facts, it is clear that her claims are based on a March 14, 2011, 

traffic stop initiated by defendant Mangham (“Officer Mangham”). ECF No. 106 at 7. As a 

result of that traffic stop, plaintiff was arrested and transported to San Joaquin County Jail on a 

number of “administrative traffic infractions.” Id. at 9. For the Towing Defendants’ part, they 

assert that plaintiff was arrested and her vehicle was impounded because of an ongoing criminal 

enterprise. ECF No. 200 at 2–3. According to the Towing Defendants, prior to plaintiff’s arrest 

she regularly drove without a driver’s license or registration with the intention of being pulled 

over. Id. Once she was pulled over and her vehicle was impounded, plaintiff would send an 

“invoice” to the tower purporting to bill for claimed loss of use of the vehicle. Id. Plaintiff would 

then fraudulently claim withheld income to the IRS based on these “invoices” to obtain tax 

refunds. Id. 

Case 2:11-cv-01265-KJM-AC Document 209 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 4
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

Based on this understanding of the facts surrounding plaintiff’s claims, the Towing 

Defendants have requested the registration history of plaintiff’s vehicle in order to establish 

undisputed facts to be used in a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 4–5. Specifically, the 

Towing Defendants’ subpoena requests 

Registration history, for the last 10 years, of the following vehicle: 

194 Jaguar XJS, CV, Vin SAJNX27ORC191129; including time 

when Registered owner was: White Panther Fincl Trst, David H 

Putnam, Trustee, 2561 Beecher Rd., Stockton, CA, 95215 and/or 

TerryLyn McCain 2549 N. Beecher Rd., Stockton, CA 95215. 

Id. at 5; ECF No. 194, Exhibit B-3. 

In summary, plaintiff claims that she was wrongfully arrested in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment. The Towing Defendants, however, assert that she was properly arrested for failure 

to register her vehicle, driving without a license, and engaging in a criminal enterprise. In light of 

the Towing Defendants’ version of the facts, the registration history of plaintiff’s vehicle is 

clearly relevant to plaintiff’s claims. 

Second, the disclosure of the registration history of plaintiff’s vehicle would not be unduly 

burdensome, nor would it violate plaintiff’s rights to privacy. With regards to plaintiff’s 

burdensome objection, the Towing Defendants’ discovery request cannot have burdened plaintiff 

because it was not directed at her. What’s more, plaintiff cannot assert any right to privacy to her 

vehicle’s registration history, especially in light of the foregoing allegations. For one, plaintiff 

does not offer any authority in support of the proposition that she has a privacy interest in her 

vehicle’s registration history. In addition, by asserting she was wrongfully arrested on charges 

involving her failure to register her vehicle, plaintiff has put the registration of her vehicle in 

issue. Accordingly, she cannot now object that her vehicle registration records are off limits. 

Finally, it is unclear what plaintiff’s self-styled motion for clarification of scope of 

pending action seeks, but it seems to request that the court bar defendants from requesting 

documents related to plaintiff’s DMV records based on the contention that they are irrelevant to 

her claims. ECF No. 207. For reasons the court has already stated, plaintiff’s contention is 

incorrect and the court will issue no such order. 

//// 

Case 2:11-cv-01265-KJM-AC Document 209 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

In accordance with the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motions to quash, ECF Nos. 194, 195, are DENIED; and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification, ECF No. 207, is DENIED. 

DATED: January 12, 2016 

Case 2:11-cv-01265-KJM-AC Document 209 Filed 01/13/16 Page 4 of 4