Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01436/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01436-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331ra Fed. Question: Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

17cv1436-GPC (MSB)

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

WILLIAMS & COCHRANE, LLP, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUECHAN TRIBE OF THE FORT YUMA 

INDIAN RESERVATION, et al.,

Defendants.

AND ALL RELATED COUNTER CLAIMS

Case No.: 17cv1436-GPC (MSB)

ORDER DENYING WILLIAMS & 

COCHRANE’S EX PARTE MOTION TO 

VACATE NOTICES OF DEPOSITION BY 

THE QUECHAN TRIBE OF THE FORT 

YUMA INDIAN RESERVATION

[ECF NO. 299]

On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff Williams & Cochrane, LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex parte

motion seeking to vacate the Notices of Depositions Defendant and Cross-Plaintiff 

Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation (“the Tribe”) issued to depose 

representatives for the State of California (“State”). (ECF No. 299 at 2.) Later the same 

day, the Tribe filed its Opposition to the ex parte motion and Defendants Robert 

Rosette, Rosette & Associates, PC, and Rosette, LLP (collectively “Rosette Defendants”) 

filed a Notice of Joinder. (ECF Nos. 300, 301.) 

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-01436-RSH-DEB Document 306 Filed 05/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17cv1436-GPC (MSB)

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

I. BACKGROUND

In 2016-2017, California Superior Court Judge Joginder Dhillon and Sara Drake 

(“Deponents”) were involved on behalf of the State of California in negotiations of the 

Tribe’s class III gaming compact. (ECF No. 300 at 2.) 

On March 12, 2020, the Tribe served third-party deposition subpoenas on both 

Deponents, setting April 28, 2020 and April 29, 2020 as the date for their depositions

(“The Depositions”). (ECF No. 299-1 at 2.) The Tribe sent notices of “The Depositions” 

to counsel for the other parties in this case. (ECF No. 300-1 at 2.) Due to the COVID-19 

pandemic, the Tribe determined it was necessary to postpone The Depositions; the 

Tribe informed Plaintiff’s counsel on April 10, 2020 that The Depositions were being 

postponed to a date to be determined. (Id. at 3.) 

On April 29, 2020, the parties filed a “Joint Motion for One-Time Continuance of 

Scheduling Order Deadlines.” (ECF No. 293.) In response thereto, the Court continued 

fact discovery cut-off to June 12, 2020. (ECF No. 294.) 

Working with Deponents’ counsel, the Tribe rescheduled The Depositions for June 

2, 2020 and June 3, 2020. (ECF No. 300-1 at 3.) The Tribe served notice of The 

Depositionsrescheduled for June on counsel for the other parties on May 1, 2020. (ECF 

No. 299-1 at 2; ECF No. 300-1 at 3.) Neither Deponents nor their respective attorneys 

have objected either to being deposed or the date of the deposition. (Id.) Instead, 

Deponents’ counsel agreed to produce subpoenas pursuant to the original subpoena on 

the postponed date. (Id.) Counsel for the Tribe met and conferred with Plaintiff’s 

counsel “numerous occasions” between May 1, 2020 and May 20, 2020, with no 

mention of the scheduling of The Depositions until May 20, 2020. (Id.) 

On May 20, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with counsel for 

Deponents and the Tribe to request they reschedule the depositions after a hearing on 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the State’s compliance with document subpoenas, currently 

scheduled for hearing on June 10, 2020 in the United States District Court for the 

Case 3:17-cv-01436-RSH-DEB Document 306 Filed 05/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17cv1436-GPC (MSB)

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

Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 299-1 at 3.) Counsel for the Tribe informed 

Plaintiff that the depositions would go forward as planned. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s instant ex parte motion, the Tribe’s opposition, and Rosette 

Defendants’ joinder were all filed on May 21, 2020. (ECF Nos. 299, 300, 301.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Reciting the preceding facts, voluminous unsupported speculation regarding the 

Tribe’s motives and strategy, and no authority, Plaintiff asks this Court to (1) vacate the 

notices for The Depositions on June 2 and 3, 2020; (2) require that the Tribe reissue its 

deposition subpoenas for a date after Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with 

document subpoenas against the State is heard; and (3) require the Tribe to specify 

whether the depositions will be done in person or remotely, so Plaintiff can plan 

accordingly. (ECF No. 299.) Plaintiff offers to join the Tribe in requesting that The 

Depositions be permitted to go forward after the close of fact discovery. (Id. at 3, n.1.) 

The Tribe and Rosette Defendants (together, “Defendants”) argue that Plaintiff has no 

standing to challenge The Depositions of third parties who do not object to their own 

depositions. (ECF No. 300 at 3-4.) They further note that there has been no prejudice to 

Plaintiff because the depositions were delayed, and any unfortunate timing for Plaintiff 

was the result of Plaintiff’s own actions, such as late-issuance of subpoenas on the State 

and Plaintiff’s insistence on only a one-time continuance. (Id. at 4-5.) 

A. Standing

In the first instance, the Court looks to see whether Plaintiff has standing to 

challenge the notices of deposition. The general rule is “that only the party to which a 

subpoena is directed has standing to challenge that subpoena.” Stafford v. Brink's, Inc., 

No. CV 14-1352-MWF (PLA), 2016 WL 7647659, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2016) (citing 

Leal v. Target Corp., Case No. 2:14-cv-00846-APG-NJK, 2015 WL 7294936 (D. Nev. June 

24, 2015).

The notices of deposition at issue here were duly noticed depositions to third 

parties, both of whom are represented by independent counsel. Plaintiff argues that 

Case 3:17-cv-01436-RSH-DEB Document 306 Filed 05/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17cv1436-GPC (MSB)

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

the deposition subpoena is insufficient because the original deposition notices expired 

and were not reissued. (ECF No. 299 at 2.) However, Deponents have agreed to appear 

at The Depositions based on the original subpoenas and their counsel agreed with the 

Tribe that it was unnecessary to reissue the subpoenas. Plaintiff has not put forward 

any authority for its position that the subpoena has expired or to justify attempted 

intervention here. Since Plaintiff does not represent Deponents, Plaintiff has no 

standing to challenge The Depositions. Plaintiff’s ex parte requests to vacate the Tribe’s 

deposition notices and order the Tribe to reissue subpoenas are DENIED. 

B. Request for Completion of Document Subpoenas

The real gist of Plaintiff’s argument is that it should have the opportunity to finish 

litigating its motion to compel the State’s compliance with its document subpoena, so 

that Plaintiff has the State’s documents to use at The Depositions. (ECF No. 300 at 2-3.) 

Placing blame on the Tribe, Plaintiff suggests that by noticing The Depositions in the last 

two weeks before the close of fact discovery, the Tribe intended to force Plaintiff to go 

forward without complete documents with which to cross examine Deponents. (Id.) 

But this argument is unavailing. 

Plaintiff has made no demonstration that it diligently pursued the records it now 

seeks to compel prior to The Depositions. The Court issued a Scheduling Order after a 

Case Management Conference on October 7, 2019. (ECF No. 242.) If Plaintiff wanted to 

have documents from the State prior to depositions of the State’s witnesses, it was 

incumbent on Plaintiff to prioritize the pursuit of those documents early in discovery, 

yet Plaintiff hasn’t even attempted to demonstrate that it made a diligent effort that 

would justify an exception to the current scheduling order for The Depositions to occur 

after fact discovery cutoff. Plaintiff does not state when it served the subpoena in 

question, or when it filed its motion to compel. 

Nor has Plaintiff justified waiting from May 1 to May 20 before initiating a 

conversation with counsel for the Tribe and Deponents about rescheduling the 

depositions. If Plaintiff thought these documents justified delaying The Depositions, one 

Case 3:17-cv-01436-RSH-DEB Document 306 Filed 05/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17cv1436-GPC (MSB)

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

would expect that Plaintiff would have raised the issue even before April 10, when 

Plaintiff learned The Depositions would not go forward later that month. Plaintiff’s 

having waited to raise this issue until May 20, 2020, suggests that continuance of The 

Depositions due to COVID-19 gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file the motion to compel 

which is the basis of this motion. In sum, the facts before the Court do not support 

Plaintiff’s argument.

C. Request to Know Mode of The Depositions

Addressing Plaintiff’s concern about how The Depositions will go forward, the 

Court notes that counsel for the Tribe has informed Plaintiff in writing that they will 

proceed remotely. (ECF No. 300-1 at 4.) Plaintiff’s request for more information is 

therefore DENIED as moot.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to vacate the notices of deposition by the Tribe is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 26, 2020

Case 3:17-cv-01436-RSH-DEB Document 306 Filed 05/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5