Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00236/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00236-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION 

OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00236-WHO 

ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH

Re: Dkt. No. 84

Defendants CMP, BioMax, and David Daleiden move to quash a subpoena issued by 

plaintiffs to the National Abortion Federation (NAF). The subpoena seeks production of materials

produced by these defendants to NAF in a related action, National Abortion Federation v. Center 

for Medical Progress et al., Case No. 15-cv-3522.1 

Defendants argue that the subpoena must be quashed because: (i) it is procedurally 

defective, as a third-party subpoena under Rule 45 cannot be used to secure information produced 

by a party, and a document request under Rule 34 should be used instead; (ii) the materials sought 

are privileged,

2

 were only produced in the NAF v. CMP case pursuant to an expedited schedule 

because of their purported relevance to the preliminary injunction proceedings, and plaintiffs have 

failed to explain the relevance of the materials sought to the claims at issue here; and (iii) the 

materials at issue were produced to NAF only under a strict protective order that protected the 

 

1

The subpoena seeks to compel NAF to produce: (i) all documents and information produced to it 

by defendants in the NAF v. CMP case; (ii) all recordings produced to NAF by defendants in the 

NAF v. CMP case; and (iii) copies of all deposition transcripts and exhibits taken of any of the 

NAF defendants. Dkt. No. 84 at 1.

2 Defendants assert that some portion of the materials sought – presumably the recordings but also 

documents regarding the scope and purpose of the Human Capital Project investigation – are 

privileged “journalistic work product, protected by the First Amendment.” Dkt. No. 84 at 3. 

Case 3:16-cv-00236-WHO Document 90 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 4
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

defendants’ interests in the materials and ensured confidential treatment of those materials for 

purposes of litigation in the NAF v. CMP action, as well as the return of the materials after the 

conclusion of that litigation. Id. at 3; Case No. 15-cv-3522 Dkt. No. 92 (“Stipulated Protective 

Order for Purposes of Expedited Preliminary Injunction Discovery”).

Plaintiffs respond that: (i) the use of a Rule 45 subpoena is appropriate to secure discovery 

produced in a collateral matter, here in the NAF v. CMP case, under Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003); (ii) Rule 34 requests are not a sufficient substitute because 

defendants indicate that they intend to produce only a subset of the material produced in the NAF 

v. CMP case in response to plaintiffs’ pending Rule 34 document requests (e.g., edited 

recordings); (iii) the materials sought are plainly relevant to the claims here and are needed on an 

expedited basis because of their relevance to rebut factual assertions made by defendants in the 

pending anti-SLAPP motions; and (iv) plaintiffs agree to be bound by all provisions of the NAF v. 

CMP Protective Order.

To begin, for purposes of ruling on this dispute, I reject plaintiffs’ assertion that 

defendantswaived any privilege or privacy interest they had when they turned the recordings over 

to Congress in response to the Congressional subpoena.3 And I reject defendants’ argument that 

use of a Rule 45 subpoena to secure discovery from a non-party in these circumstances is 

procedurally defective. It is not. The cases that defendants rely on are inapposite. Burns v. Bank 

of Am., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40037, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2007) and Thomas v. IEM, Inc., 

No. 06-886-B-M2, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19186, at *1 (M.D. La. Mar. 12, 2008), addressed 

situations where plaintiffs sought discovery from party defendants using Rule 45 subpoenas. The

courts concluded that using Rule 45 was not appropriate or necessary where requests for discovery 

under Rule 34 sufficed.4 

 

3

I do not need to reach the questions of whether the materials are privileged and whether there 

was a waiver when they were produced to Congress to resolve this dispute.

4

In the third case defendants rely on, Harris v. Calzetta, No. 1:13-cv-01088-MJS (PC), 2015 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 154743, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2015), the court without analysis or case citation 

simply held that a pro se plaintiff would be allowed to seek information pursuant to a Rule 45 

subpoena only if the information was not available from defendant through Rule 34 requests for 

production 

Case 3:16-cv-00236-WHO Document 90 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 4
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

Instead, under Foltz, the questions before me are whether I should amend the Protective 

Order issued in NAF v. CMP to allow plaintiffs here access to materials produced and marked as 

confidential under that Protective Order and whether the information sought is relevant to this 

case.5 Given the allegations in this action, the materials sought are directly relevant and 

discoverable. As the Foltz court noted, relevance “hinges” on the degree of overlap in facts, 

parties, and issues between the suit covered by the protective order and the collateral proceedings. 

Id. 331 F.3d at 1132. Here there is significant if not complete overlap in facts, parties, and issues.

6

 

While defendants argue that the reasons for the production of the full, unedited videos in the NAF 

v. CMP case are not present in this case (Dtk. No. 84 at 3), I disagree.7 It is immaterial that the 

production of the recordings in NAF v. CMP was expedited because of the preliminary injunction 

proceedings (and the Congressional subpoena). It is not the expedited manner of the production in 

NAF v. CMP but the relevance of the materials themselves that is at issue. Defendants’ assertion 

that, unlike in NAF v. CMP, plaintiffs here do not “seek to notify any individuals of the recordings 

in order to protect their safety or privacy” is similarly without import, given the repeated (though 

as yet unproved and untested) allegations in plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint about the 

compromised safety of their organization and its members. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 10, 17, 70, 75, 

81, 96, 112.

Allowing plaintiffs access to the materials sought in the subpoena will “advance[] the

 

5 Defendants argue that Foltz is inapposite because it addressed the right of public access to 

discovery documents filed with a court. Dkt. No. 84 at 2. The Foltz Court did address that 

question, but the portion of the Foltz decision I rely on here concerns the litigants’ access to 

unfiled discovery from a collateral proceeding (here the NAF v. CMP litigation). Foltz, 331 F.3d 

1130-1134.

6

There are additional defendants in this case, but all defendants in the NAF v. CMP case are 

defendants here. Similarly, there are additional facts relevant to this case, but almost all of the 

facts at issue in the NAF v. CMP case will be relevant in this action.

7 Defendants focus their objections on production of the recordings, and do not separately make 

relevance objections regarding the transcripts and exhibits or any other specific type of discovery 

covered by the subpoena to NAF. 

Case 3:16-cv-00236-WHO Document 90 Filed 05/10/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

interests of judicial economy by avoiding the wasteful duplication of discovery.” Id. at 1131.8 I 

recognize that defendants want to protect and shield from unnecessary disclosure materials that 

they believe are privileged, but their interests will be safeguarded by amendment of the NAF v. 

CMP Protective Order, binding plaintiffs to the terms of that Protective Order (requiring use of the 

materials only for purposes of this litigation, requiring them to follow Civil Local Rule 79-5 

procedures if they intend to file confidential information with the Court, requiring confidential 

materials to be returned at conclusion of the case, and so forth) while allowing them access to the

requested materials.

9

For these reasons, I DENY the motion to quash the subpoena. I ORDER that plaintiffs are 

bound by the provisions of the NAF v. CMP Protective Order with respect to any and all uses of 

the materials produced pursuant to the subpoena. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

 

8

I do not address and do not modify the NAF v. CMP Protective Order to cover any materials not 

expressly included in the subpoena at issue. For example, this modification would not cover any 

discovery that has not yet been produced in the NAF v. CMP litigation.

9 Requiring plaintiffs to abide by the strict provisions of the NAF v. CMP Protective Order is 

necessary to continue to protect materials defendants assert are privileged, and to protect the 

ongoing privacy interests and safety concerns of NAF members and others who are shown in or 

otherwise identified by the CMP recordings.

Case 3:16-cv-00236-WHO Document 90 Filed 05/10/16 Page 4 of 4