Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01353/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01353-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA

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

JOHN COBB,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, ALEX 

CALDERSON, CHIEF WILLIAM 

LANSDOWNE, CITY OF SAN DIEGO, 

and DOES 1 THROUGH 10,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA

ORDER:

(1) QUASHING PLAINTIFF’S 

SUBPOENA TO CERTAIN SAN 

DIEGO POLICE OFFICERS (ECF 

No. 146);

(2) QUASHING PLAINTIFF’S 

SUBPOENA TO CUSTODIAN OF 

RECORDS OF CITIZENS’ REVIEW 

BOARD (ECF No. 147); 

(3) QUASHING ALL SUBPOENAS 

FOR DOCUMENTS ISSUED TO SAN 

DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT 

(ECF No. 149); and 

(4) DENYING SANCTIONS 

AGAINST PLAINTIFF.

Defendants have filed three motions to quash subpoenas issued by Plaintiff John 

Cobb. (ECF Nos. 146, 147, 149). Plaintiff opposes. (ECF Nos. 153, 155, 156.) Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3) requires a district court to quash or modify a subpoena 

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 167 Filed 08/02/16 Page 1 of 4
2

3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA

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

that subjects a person to undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). Subpoenas may also be 

quashed for being untimely. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA, 190 F.R.D. 556, 

561 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (“Case law establishes that subpoenas under Rule 45 are discovery, 

and must be utilized within the time period permitted for discovery in a case.”). 

The Court addresses each motion to quash in turn.

I. Motion to Quash Subpoenas to San Diego Police Officers Bernie Colon, 

Michelle Velovich, and Jeffrey Peterson

Defendants move to quash subpoenas for the trial appearances of three San Diego 

Police Department (“SDPD”) officers: Capt. Bernie Colon, Sgt. Michelle Velovich, and 

Lt. Jeffrey Peterson. (ECF No. 146.) These officers are assigned to Internal Affairs

(“IA”). (Id.) Defendants argue that these officers’ testimonies are not relevant to any of 

the three claims to be tried because none of these officers were involved in the detention, 

search, and arrest of Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff counters that their testimonies are relevant 

because he alleges that IA entered into a conspiracy to cover-up his unlawful arrest by 

not conducting an investigation of his complaint to the Citizens’ Review Board (“CRB”). 

(ECF No. 156.)

The Court agrees with Defendants. The Court has already ruled that evidence that 

IA did not investigate Plaintiff’s complaint is not relevant to the remaining claims. (ECF 

No. 159.) Requiring these officers’ appearance when their testimony is not relevant 

would subject them to an undue burden. See Brown v. Deputy No. 1, No. 12-cv-1938, 

2014 WL 842946, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2014) (“[A]lthough irrelevance is not among 

the enumerated reasons for quashing a subpoena under 45(c)(3), federal courts have 

incorporated relevance as a factor to be considered when ruling on a motion to quash. . . . 

An evaluation of undue burden requires the court to weigh the burden to the subpoenaed 

party against the value of the information to the serving party.”). The Motion is 

GRANTED.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 167 Filed 08/02/16 Page 2 of 4
3

3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA

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

II. Motion to Quash Subpoena to Custodian of Records of Citizens’ Review 

Board

Defendants move to quash a subpoena served on the “Custodian of Records, or 

Legal Department, of the Citizens’ Review Board on Police Practices” that demands the 

production of documents and appearance of the records custodian at the August 2, 2016 

trial. (ECF No. 147.) The subpoena was served on July 14, 2016, three weeks before 

trial. (Id.) 

During discovery, in response to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, 

Defendants produced “any and all documents relating to the Penal Code Section 832.5 

(regarding Citizens’ Review Board) complaint that Plaintiff Cobb made” regarding the 

incident that is the subject of this action. (Id. at Ex. 2.) Plaintiff now subpoenas for the 

following documents: (1) an unredacted copy of Plaintiff’s own CRB complaint; (2) the 

results of any investigation of his complaint; and (3) the “status, or other, relating to the 

disposition of” the investigation. (Id. at Ex. 1.) He seeks the trial appearance of the 

custodian to authenticate his complaint. (Id.) 

Defendants argue the subpoena should be quashed because it is untimely, has been 

issued to a party to the lawsuit, and is not necessary for authentication. (Id.) Plaintiff 

contends that the CRB is involved in a cover-up of his unlawful arrest and that the 

“subpoena is necessary to authenticate the requested documents at trial.” (ECF No. 155.)

The Court agrees with Defendants. Plaintiff already received discovery on the 

topics that are the subject of the subpoena, and the subpoena was served more than three 

months after discovery closed on April 4, 2016, and upon the eve of trial. See Integra 

Lifesciences, 190 F.R.D. at 561-62 (stating that subpoenas duces tecum issued after 

discovery deadlines should be quashed). Plaintiff can authenticate his own CRB 

complaint, as he has personal knowledge of its drafting and submission. Fed. R. Evid. 

901(b)(1). Furthermore, in ruling on motions in limine, the Court ruled that evidence that 

CRB did not investigate Plaintiff’s complaint is not relevant to the claims to be tried. 

(ECF No. 159.) 

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 167 Filed 08/02/16 Page 3 of 4
4

3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA

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

Therefore, the subpoena is untimely and places an undue burden on the custodian 

of records. The Motion is GRANTED.

III. Motion to Quash All Subpoenas for Documents Issued to San Diego Police 

Department

Defendants move to quash all subpoenas for production of records served on the 

SDPD. (ECF No. 149.) Defense counsel learned that Plaintiff served at least one 

subpoena on the SDPD on July 12, 2016, and Plaintiff has indicated that he has served 

other subpoenas to the SDPD. (Id.)

As the Court has already explained, these subpoenas are untimely. Plaintiff 

received discovery from the SDPD during the discovery period and could have sought the 

requested documents during discovery. He chose not to do so until now, only a few 

weeks before trial. Moreover, the Court has already quashed another subpoena for the 

exact same document requested in the July 12, 2016 subpoena to the SDPD. (ECF No. 

125.) Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Quash All Subpoenas for 

Documents Issued to the SDPD. 

IV. Request for Sanctions

Defendants ask for sanctions against Plaintiff. The Court presently declines to 

issue sanctions. The Court’s previous order cautioning Plaintiff against continuing to 

defy the Court’s rules (ECF No. 125) was issued after he issued the subpoenas. And the 

Court acknowledges that “what is objectively reasonable for a pro se litigant and an 

attorney may not be the same.” Kennar v. Kelly, No. 10-cv-2105, 2011 WL 2116997, at 

*9 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2011). However, the Court again admonishes Plaintiff for not 

complying with the Court’s rules. If Plaintiff continues to disobey the rules, the Court 

will seriously consider sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2016

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 167 Filed 08/02/16 Page 4 of 4