Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02386/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02386-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 47:0227 FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales

---

1

18CV2386-LAB(KSC)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIRGIL E. BROWN INSURANCE, for 

itself and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated; MODERN HEARING 

SOLUTIONS OF CANTON, INC., for 

itself and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS FUNDING, 

INC., 

 Defendant.

 Case No.: 18CV2386-LAB(KSC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

FINDING OF CONTEMPT [DOC. 

NO. 1] & EX PARTE APPLICATION 

[DOC. NO. 10]

Currently pending before the Court is a Motion for Finding of Contempt and Order 

Compelling Enforcement of Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Motion for Finding of Contempt”) 

filed by plaintiffs Virgil E. Brown Insurance and Modern Hearing Solutions of Canton, 

Inc. (jointly referred to hereafter as “plaintiffs”). Doc. No. 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Finding 

of Contempt relates to a subpoena issued in an underlying action, also called Virgil E. 

Brown Insurance, et al. v. Progressive Business Funding, Inc., Case No. 18CV0458-DAP,

(the “Underlying Action”) which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

Case 3:18-cv-02386-LAB-KSC Document 11 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18CV2386-LAB(KSC)

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

District of Ohio. Id., Ex. A. Plaintiffs request the Court find defendant Progressive

Business Funding, Inc., against whom default judgment has been entered in the Underlying 

Action, be found in contempt for its failure to respond or otherwise timely comply with 

plaintiffs’ subpoena. Id., p. 3. Apparently dissatisfied with the pace of the Court’s 

management of its very busy docket, plaintiffs then filed a second motion, captioned Ex 

Parte Application for Order to Show Cause re: Pending Motion to Compel Due to 

Defendant’s Default; or Alternatively, to Set Hearing Date and/or Further Scheduling 

Order (“Ex Parte Application”), pursuant to which plaintiffs request the Court set a hearing 

date on their Motion for Finding of Contempt. Doc. No. 10. As explained below, plaintiffs’

Motion for Finding of Contempt and Ex Parte Application are DENIED.

DISCUSSION

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 allows for the subpoena of documents from a non-party to a civil 

suit.

1 A subpoena served pursuant to Rule 45 must the state the court from which it issued, 

the title of the action and its civil number, and set out the text of Rule 45(d) and (e). Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(i), (ii), and (iv). Serving a subpoena requires “delivering a copy to 

the named person,” which is often interpreted to mean personal service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(b)(1); see Prescott v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, No. 10–cv–00592 JLT, 2012 WL 10617, at 

*3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012) (a majority of courts interpreting “delivering” to require 

personal service). A subpoena commanding the production of documents, electronically

stored information or tangible things requires the responding party to permit inspection, 

copying, testing or sampling of the materials at a location “within 100 miles of where the 

 

1

 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure distinguish between parties and non-parties in establishing 

available discovery devices, but do not indicate into which category a defaulted defendant falls. In the

Ninth Circuit, however, a defaulted defendant is treated as a non-party for purposes of discovery. Jules 

Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (adopting the reasoning 

of Blazek v. Capital Recovery Assocs., Inc., 222 F.R.D. 360, 361 (W.D.Wis. 2004).

Case 3:18-cv-02386-LAB-KSC Document 11 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18CV2386-LAB(KSC)

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

person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(a)(1)(D) & (b)(2)(A).

Here, the subpoena plaintiffs seek to enforce is procedurally defective for several

reasons. Plaintiffs’ subpoena does not include the text of Rule 45(d) and (e), as required, 

but rather includes the outdated requirements of Rule 45 (c), (d) and (e), which were 

amended and renumbered in 2013, as well as California Judicial Council form SUBP-025, 

which explains a responding party’s obligations under state law and incorrectly identifies 

the Superior Court for the County of San Diego as the issuing court. Doc. No. 1, Ex. A, pp. 

3 & 7. Additionally, although the service address for the subpoena is a location in San 

Diego, plaintiffs command production be made to a law firm in Chicago, Illinois, well 

outside the 100 mile limit imposed by Rule 45(b)(2)(A).

Even if plaintiffs’ subpoena was not defective on its face, plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Finding of Contempt does not set forth a basis for the Court to grant the requested relief. 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Finding of Contempt offers no evidence to establish the individual 

served with the subpoena, Cozette Mann, of Tailored Legal, PC, located at 355 4th Avenue, 

San Diego, CA 92103, is an agent authorized to receive service of process on behalf of 

defendant, or that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) and the personal service 

requirements of Rule 45(b)(1) have otherwise been met. 

Furthermore, plaintiffs do not even attempt to show the documents they seek are 

relevant to their claims and also proportional to the needs of the Underlying Action, 

considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, 

the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance 

of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

Case 3:18-cv-02386-LAB-KSC Document 11 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18CV2386-LAB(KSC)

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

Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs’ Motion for Finding of Contempt and Ex Parte 

Application are DENIED.

Dated: March 26, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02386-LAB-KSC Document 11 Filed 03/26/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4