Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05281/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05281-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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 I have repeatedly admonished plaintiff to comply with

my orders. Plaintiff is warned that failure to do so may

result in the imposition of sanctions.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FANG-YUH HSIEH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

R. JAMES NICHOLSON,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-5281 PJH (BZ)

ORDER TAKING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR

EMPLOYMENT RECORDS OFF

CALENDAR

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to quash the

subpoena issued for production and inspection of his

employment records is taken off calendar for failing to comply

with my previous orders.1 My December 5, 2006 Initial

Discovery Order requires parties to first “meet in person” and

then “participate in a telephone conference with the Court

before filing any discovery motions or other papers.” 

Plaintiff does not appear to have done either yet. 

In deciding whether to raise this dispute again,

Case 4:06-cv-05281-PJH Document 106 Filed 11/20/07 Page 1 of 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

2

plaintiff should be mindful that “a motion to quash must be

made before the production or deposition date identified in

the subpoena.” Anderson v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.,

2007 WL 1994059, *8 (S.D.Cal. 2007). 

Dated: November 20, 2007

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\HSIEH\Order Denying Motion to Quash.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-05281-PJH Document 106 Filed 11/20/07 Page 2 of 2