Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02132/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02132-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

RBS SECURITIES INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv2132-JM (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO COMPEL

[ECF NO. 3]

vs.

PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE, INC.,

Defendant.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with a subpoena

duces tecum issued to Defendant under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 in connection with federal

civil litigation pending in the Western District of Wisconsin. (See ECF No. 1-2, Exh.

A). Defendant is not a party to that action but is located in this District. 

Accordingly, the subpoena was issued by this Court. (Id. at Exh. C). This Court has

jurisdiction to hear this motion pursuant to Rule 45(c)(3).

The subpoena requires Defendant to produce certain loan files. Defendant has

refused to produce the files unless Plaintiff complies with California Code of Civil

Procedure, section 1985.3 (“CCP 1985.3"). CCP 1985.3 imposes upon the party

seeking the records an obligation to notify the consumer and provide an opportunity

to object to disclosure. 

Plaintiff asserts that CCP 1985.3 does not apply to federal proceedings and

federal subpoenas. By its terms, CCP 1985.3 applies to a person who causes “a

- 1 -

Case 3:12-cv-02132-JM-MDD Document 7 Filed 09/10/12 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

subpoena duces tecum to be issued or served in connection with any civil action or

proceeding pursuant to this code . . . .” CCP 1985.3(a)(3) (emphasis added). The

subpoena in this case was not issued pursuant to the California Civil Code. See

McKinney v. Department of the Treasury, 1996 WL 775922 at n.1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25,

1996). 

Some courts have wandered into the morass of determining whether CCP

1985.3 creates a privilege under California law and whether that privilege should be

accorded some recognition in federal proceedings. See, e.g. Corser v. County of

Merced, 2006 WL 253622 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006): Robinson v. Kia Motors America,

Inc., 2011 WL 2433369 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2011). This Court instead will credit the

plain language of the statute regarding its scope. A subpoena duces tecum issued

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not subject to CCP 1985.3 which, by its

terms, is limited to subpoenas issued under the CCP. 

To the extent that any particular borrower has a privacy interest in the file

pertaining to his or her loan, this Court finds that any such interest is sufficiently

protected by the protective order outstanding in this case. (ECF No. 1-2, Exh. B). 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to

produce responsive records no later than September 21, 2012, absent agreement of

the parties or further order of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 10, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 2 - 12cv2132-JM (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-02132-JM-MDD Document 7 Filed 09/10/12 Page 2 of 2