Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04344/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04344-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

1

Case Nos. 5:12-cv-04344-PSG.

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO QUASH

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BALJINDER RAI, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

SANTA CLARA VALLEY 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al.,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:12-cv-04344-PSG

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART 

MOTION TO QUASH

Plaintiffs Baljinder Rai, et al. object to Defendants Santa Clara Valley Transportation 

Authority, et al.’s notice and subpoena for a deposition of a person most knowledgeable at 

Amalgamated Transit Union, Division 265, the union that represents class members currently 

employed by VTA.1 VTA provided notice of the deposition to Plaintiffs on August 6, Plaintiffs 

received the subpoena by way of snail mail on August 10 and VTA seeks to depose the union’s 

PMK on August 14. 

While there is no general rule as to what constitutes “reasonable time,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(d)(2)(B) suggests 14 days as a starting point by requiring objections to be filed in that period 

 

1

See Docket No. 210 at 2.

Case 5:12-cv-04344-PSG Document 212 Filed 08/12/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case Nos. 5:12-cv-04344-PSG.

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO QUASH

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

For the Northern District of California

unless a response is demanded sooner.

2

Sufficient time and notice is important for Plaintiffs to 

present any objections and determine potential issues of privilege to do with the deposition.

3

The court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to quash, but only IN-PART. Defendants 

indeed selected a date Plaintiffs said they were available and attempted to place Defendants on 

notice, although they were not diligent in mailing the subpoena.

4

 And Defendants are correct that 

Plaintiffs’ efforts to meet and confer on their motion to quash appear half-hearted at least.

5

 In the 

interest of fairness and the impending close of discovery, therefore, the deposition of the union’s 

PMK need not take place on August 14, 2015, but shall take place on or before August 21, 2015. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2

See, e.g., Bickoff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 14-cv-1065-BEN, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33728, 

at *5-6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015).

3

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i).

4

See Docket No. 211 at 1.

5

See id.

Case 5:12-cv-04344-PSG Document 212 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 2