Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04984/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04984-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN TODD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TEMPUR-SEALY INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04984-JST (MEJ)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

CLARIFICATION OF MINUTE ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 191, 213

Pending before the Court is Defendants Tempur-Sealy International, Inc. and TempurPedic North America, LLC’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Clarification of Minute Order. Dkt. No. 

213. The matter at issue relates to a subpoena duces tecum served on Google, Inc. to obtain 

information regarding web analytic data, specifically the number of “hits” on a webpage 

maintained by Allen Stewart P.C. (Plaintiffs’ counsel) regarding this lawsuit. As background, on 

March 8, 2016, Allen Stewart P.C. filed a letter raising two questions:

Question 1: Once the in-person meet and confer session has

taken place, should the motion to quash be filed as a Motion, or

as a Joint Letter that is no longer than 5 pages as in Judge

James’ Discovery Standing Order (Revised February 19,

2014)?

Question 2: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, an objection must

be filed within 14 days of service, so I am currently against a

deadline that is coming up this Thursday, March 10, 2016. If

the parties cannot complete the in-person meet and confer by

then, in what format can the motion to quash be filed, while still

maintaining timeliness on our objection?

Dkt. No. 190.

The Court issued the following Minute Order in response:

Order by Mag. Judge Maria-Elena James re [190] Letter re

Case 3:13-cv-04984-JST Document 229 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Procedural Questions Regarding Filing of Motion to Quash.

The Court responds to counsel’s questions as follows: (1) As

indicated in the Discovery Standing Order, if unable to resolve

their dispute after good faith meet and confer efforts in person,

all discovery disputes are to be submitted in the form of a joint

letter, including non-parties, (2) Counsel’s letter shall constitute

an objection pursuant to Rule 45. No further filing is required.

Dkt. No. 191

Defendants now request clarification of this Order for three reasons. First, Defendants 

maintain the Court improperly treated the letter as an “objection,” which is not an appropriate 

response to a subpoena duces tecum. Mot. at 4 (citing Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 

636 (C.D. Cal. 2005)). The Court understands Defendants’ concern and clarifies as follows. The 

Court construes the second question in Plaintiffs’ counsel’s March 8 letter as a request for 

additional time to object or request to quash, and the Minute Order granted counsel’s request. 

Thus, any subsequent objection or request to quash filed concerning this matter would be timely. 

Second, Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted no grounds for the objection, and 

thus Defendants are left in a position of having to address an objection without knowing the basis. 

Id. Defendants state they are uncertain as to which party has the burden in this instance to bring 

the matter before the Court and initiate the joint letter briefing. Id. The Court responds as 

follows. As Plaintiffs seek to quash the subpoena, they are responsible for initiating the joint letter 

briefing. Further, the Discovery Standing Order applies to nonparties, and its provisions would 

therefore apply to Google, Inc., should it become involved. 

Finally, Defendants request the Court clarify its ruling regarding the in-person meet and 

confer and whether or not it applies in this situation. Id. at 5. Defendants state this is their third 

attempt to obtain this information, having previously attempted to obtain it from another web 

vendor of Allen Stewart P.C. and Allen Stewart P.C. itself. Id. In both instances, counsel for 

Defendants met in person with counsel for Plaintiffs—the first occurred on September 18, 2015 

and the second occurred on February 18, 2016—and both parties agree that a third in person meet 

and confer will be futile. Id. Under these circumstances, the Court agrees that the parties have 

Case 3:13-cv-04984-JST Document 229 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

met their obligations to meet and confer on this issue.

1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1

See Civ. L.R. 1-5(n) (“‘Meet and confer’ or ‘confer’ means to communicate directly and discuss 

in good faith the issue(s) required under the particular Rule or order. Unless these Local Rules 

otherwise provide or a Judge otherwise orders, such communication may take place by telephone. 

The mere sending of a written, electronic, or voice-mail communication, however, does not satisfy 

a requirement to ‘meet and confer’ or to ‘confer.’ Rather, this requirement can be satisfied only 

through direct dialogue and discussion – either in a face to face meeting or in a telephone 

conversation. ”

Case 3:13-cv-04984-JST Document 229 Filed 05/02/16 Page 3 of 3