Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03100/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03100-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:6901 Environmental Cleanup Expenses

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNIVERSAL PARAGON

CORPORATION and SUNQUEST

PROPERTIES, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY

LIMITED, et al., 

Defendant(s).

 

AND RELATED CLAIMS.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-3100 MJJ (BZ)

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

TO COMPEL

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to compel

third-party Penetone Corporation to respond to the subpoena

served September 22, 2006 is DENIED on the grounds that it was

untimely, discovery having been cut off on August 25, 2006. 

See NSight, Inc. v. Peoplesoft, Inc., 2006 WL 988807 (N.D.

Cal. April 13, 2006). As Union Pacific points out, defendants

interposed the August 25, 2006 cutoff in objecting to

plaintiff’s discovery. To the extent defendants claim that

they expected Judge Jenkins to extend the discovery cutoff

Case 3:05-cv-03100-TEH Document 142 Filed 12/22/06 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

2

when the parties filed a stipulation dated October 19, 2006,

it does not appear that Judge Jenkins has signed this

stipulation or that it would apply to the subpoena at issue.

That a party may not have standing to object to the

breath of a third-party subpoena does not mean that a party

does not have standing to object to a third-party subpoena

issued in violation of the court’s discovery cutoff. Nor do

defendants explain how a third-party served with a subpoena

would necessarily know at the time it must file its objections

that discovery has been cut off. Third-party discovery is to

be conducted with a view to minimizing the burden on the

third-party. Requiring a third-party to obtain counsel to

review the court file to see if the subpoena was issued in

violation of a court order prior to objecting seems

inconsistent with that concept. Nor does it follow that an

agreement to extend the date for filing discovery motions has

the effect of reopening discovery.

The court finds no need for argument and vacates the

hearing scheduled for January 10, 2007.

Dated: December 22, 2006

Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\UNIVERSAL PARAGON\DISC8.ORDER.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-03100-TEH Document 142 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 2