Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00312/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00312-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

WESTPORT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RELIEF,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00312-CRB (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

Re: Dkt. No. 95

On March 26, 2015, Defendant Northern California Relief filed a motion to compel 

compliance with several subpoenas issued to non-party law firms. (Def.'s Mot. to Compel, Dkt. 

No. 77.) On March 31, 2015, this Court terminated the motion because the subpoenas list Los 

Angeles, CA as the place of compliance. (Mar. 31, 2015 Order at1, Dkt. No. 84.) In its order, the 

Court instructed Defendant that if it intended to pursue these discovery matters in this forum, it 

was to file a brief explaining why the relief sought should not be obtained from the United States 

District Court for the Central District of California. (Id. at 2.) Defendant filed a supplemental 

brief on April 15, 2015. (Def.'s Supp. Br., Dkt. No. 95.) 

The certificate of service Defendant filed indicates that he served a copy of the 

supplemental brief on Plaintiff's counsel, but not on any of the subpoenaed non-party law firms. 

Accordingly, Defendant shall file a certificate of service showing that the non-party law firms 

have been served with the supplemental brief and this Court's March 31, 2015 order. This will 

give the non-party law firms an opportunity to file a responsive brief, which shall be due within 14

days of service of the supplemental brief. Defendant may file an optional reply brief within 7 days 

of the filing of any responsive brief.

Case 3:14-cv-00312-CRB Document 119 Filed 04/21/15 Page 1 of 2
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

In the interest of time and conserving judicial resources, Defendant should again consider 

whether it is appropriate to re-file its motion to compel in the Central District of California to the 

extent it concerns subpoenas that, on their face, require compliance in that district.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 04/21/2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00312-CRB Document 119 Filed 04/21/15 Page 2 of 2