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 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MATTHEW WAYNE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-06994-PJH 

ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER 

BRIEF 

Re: Dkt. No. 140 

 The plaintiff-relator in the above-captioned case has filed a discovery letter brief 

seeking resolution of a discovery matter. See Dkt. 140.1 The letter explains that the 

court previously dismissed claims against defendant Hayward Unified School District 

(“HUSD”), but allowed claims against three individual employees of the district to 

proceed. See Dkt. 123. 

 Plaintiff now seeks discovery from HUSD, and because HUSD is no longer a party 

to the case, such discovery must proceed as third-party discovery. However, the person 

to which third-party discovery would typically be directed is HUSD Superintendent 

Matthew Wayne, who remains a defendant in this case. Plaintiff explains that he is 

“ethically prohibited from contacting Mr. Wayne or serving discovery on him in his 

capacity as Superintendent of HUSD.” Dkt. 140 at 1. 

 Plaintiff states that he has asked Mr. Wayne’s counsel, who also served as 

1

 Plaintiff’s counsel filed a second letter explaining that he did not file a joint letter brief 

because this is not a dispute between the parties, but rather an attempt to obtain 

discovery from a third party. See Dkt. 141. The court agrees that a joint letter brief was 

not required in this instance. 

Case 4:16-cv-06994-PJH Document 142 Filed 02/09/22 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 

HUSD’s counsel prior to dismissal, to identify a contact person upon whom to serve 

discovery, but they have “declined to do so with no explanation.” Dkt. 140 at 1. 

 The court agrees with plaintiff that any discovery sought from HUSD must proceed 

as third-party discovery, and that a dilemma is created when the person on whom such 

third-party discovery must be served is also a defendant in the case. Accordingly, the 

court DIRECTS defendant Matthew Wayne to file a statement indicating whether he is 

willing to accept service of third-party discovery in his official capacity as HUSD 

Superintendent (i.e., not in his individual capacity), or whether he wishes to designate 

another person to accept service on behalf of HUSD or whether there is already a 

designated agent for service of process for the district. If Mr. Wayne wishes to designate 

another person or if there is already a designated agent, the statement shall provide the 

name and contact information of that person. Such statement shall be filed no later than 

February 14, 2022. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 9, 2022 

 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:16-cv-06994-PJH Document 142 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 2