Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01455/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01455-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1 

18cv1455-LAB (JLB)

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 

ANTON EWING, et al., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

OASIS MEDIA, LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1455-LAB (JLB) 

ORDER QUASHING 

SUBPOENAS; AND 

ORDER FORBIDDING 

PLAINTIFF EWING FROM 

ISSUING OR SERVING 

SUBPOENAS WITHOUT LEAVE

 Plaintiff Anton Ewing, proceeding pro se, issued four subpoenas, which 

Defendants’ counsel has moved to quash. 

One of the subpoenas purports to require the attendance of attorney Linda 

Lucero at a deposition in Glendale, California and to produce numerous privileged 

documents. That subpoena violates numerous rules, not the least of which is that 

it was not properly signed or completed. For example, it is not signed either by the 

Clerk or by a licensed attorney as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3).1

 Rather, 

                                               

1 Under this subsection, a subpoena may be signed either by the Clerk of Court, 

or by an attorney, “if the attorney is authorized to practice in the issuing court.” 

Case 3:18-cv-01455-LAB-MSB Document 63 Filed 04/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18cv1455-LAB (JLB)

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

Ewing himself signed it on the line marked “Attorney.” He has been previously 

ordered to cease holding himself out as an attorney. 

It also gave Lucero inadequate time to object and is unduly burdensome. 

Furthermore, Lucero has little or no relationship to the claims in this case, other 

than possibly having served as counsel to one or more of the Defendants before 

suit was filed. Anything she learned as a result of that relationship would be 

privileged. The subpoena commanding Linda Lucero’s attendance at a deposition 

in Glendale on April 18, 2019 is QUASHED. 

The other three subpoenas purport to require the attendance and testimony 

of Lucero as well as Defendants’ attorney Willie Wang, and California State Bar 

Investigator Charlie Hummel at the Order to Show Cause hearing set for Monday, 

April 30, 2019 at 12:00 noon. They also purport to command Lucero to bring with 

her “any and all communications with Anton Ewing from May 24, 2016 to the 

present time . . .” and Wang to bring with him originals of documents filed in the 

docket. 

The Court’s order to show cause specifically provided that Lucero and 

Defendants could, but were not required to, attend the hearing. The hearing 

concerns Ewing’s violation of the Court’s civility requirements, as evidenced by 

documents he himself filed, and apparently false representations to the Court 

contained in those documents. 

Ewing has said that the only question he wants to ask Wang is whether 

Lucero signed the declaration filed as ECF No. 44-2. (Docket no. 60, ¶ 6.) And 

Hummel, a state bar investigator, could have nothing useful to say at the hearing. 

Furthermore, subpoenas on opposing counsel are proper only in very limited 

circumstances. Wang is currently Defendants’ counsel, and Lucero at one time 

apparently was. The propriety of subpoenaing them is analyzed under a test set 

forth in Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1986). See Erhart v. 

Bofi Fed’l Bank, 2017 WL 840648, at *3 (S.D. Cal., Mar. 2, 2017). Under Shelton, 

Case 3:18-cv-01455-LAB-MSB Document 63 Filed 04/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv1455-LAB (JLB)

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

the party seeking opposing counsel’s testimony bears the burden of showing it 

should be required. 805 F.2d at 1327. Ewing’s opposition does not attempt to 

satisfy this burden; rather, he focuses on what he perceives as improper service 

of the motion to quash, and makes additional accusations against Wang.

Ewing does not need any witnesses to explain why he filed the documents 

that he did, or why he made the representations that he did. Furthermore, Ewing’s 

response (Docket no. 56) shows he does not contest making many of the remarks; 

his argument in large part appears to be that his doing so was proper and 

permissible. If Ewing could show that outside evidence were needed to explain 

any of this, the Court would consider his request, but he has not done so. The 

subpoenas purporting to command the appearance and testimony of Lucero, 

Wang, and Hummel at the order to show cause hearing on April 30, 2019 at 12:00 

noon are QUASHED. 

The motions for protective orders and to quash subpoenas (Docket nos. 59 

and 61) are GRANTED. Ewing is ORDERED not to issue or serve any more 

subpoenas in this case, without leave of the Court. If he believes a subpoena is 

necessary, he must seek leave before obtaining or serving it. 

This order is primarily intended to address the subpoenas and the order to 

show cause hearing before the undersigned District Judge. Magistrate Judge Berg 

may impose additional requirements or issue additional orders to address any 

abuses in the meet-and-confer process, or other matters committed to his 

responsibility. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 19, 2019 

Hon. Larry Alan Burns 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-01455-LAB-MSB Document 63 Filed 04/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3