UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 22, 2008
SAM BEDWELL, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jan M. Adler U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER CLARIFYING NOVEMBER 12, 2008 ORDER
On November 12, 2008, the Court issued an Order Following Telephonic Case Management Conference which set forth, inter, the following:
Plaintiff advised the Court that she and Defendants' counsel, Matthew Dente, Esq., had met and conferred regarding written discovery propounded by Defendants upon Plaintiff, and that she had agreed to provide substantive responses to all outstanding discovery with the exception of two items: (a) the school(s) in Texas to which she had submitted applications and (b) the employment positions she had sought in Texas. After Defendants' counsel, Julie Dunne, Esq., who participated in the conference, agreed to limit the time frame of the information sought to 2004, Plaintiff agreed to provide responses.
Nov. 12, 2008 Order at 2.
On December 22, 2008, Plaintiff Suzanne Moreno and Defendants' counsel, Julie Dunne, Esq. and Matthew Dente, Esq., participated in a joint telephone call with the undersigned's law clerk during which Plaintiff requested clarification of the above language. Plaintiff explained that Defendants had served a subpoena for records upon the University of Arkansas for records pertaining to her attendance at the University's law school during the 2005-06 school year. The subpoena was issued out of the Western District of Arkansas on December 5, 2008. Plaintiff believes that the above language precludes Defendants from serving such a subpoena because it seeks information (1) from a school outside of Texas and (2) relating to a time period outside of 2004. Defendants disagree with this interpretation, and contend that the above language relates only to the parties' resolution of a previous discovery issue concerning different discovery requests served by Defendants upon Plaintiff, and the Court's confirmation thereof.
Defendants are correct. The above-cited portion of the Court's November 12 Order pertained only to the discovery dispute before the Court at that time. The Court did not rule, with respect to Plaintiff's school records, that only information pertaining to schools in Texas during the 2004 time frame was relevant. The Order does not preclude Defendants from serving additional discovery requests or third party subpoenas which seek relevant information, even if such discovery falls outside of the scope of the agreement reached with respect to the previous written discovery served upon Plaintiff. In other words, the compromise reached between the parties on the prior written discovery, and the Court's confirmation thereof, does not prevent Defendants from seeking additional discovery of relevant information.
Although it is for the court out of which the subpoena was issued, i.e., the Western District of Arkansas, to resolve any objections to the subpoena (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)), the Court here is satisfied that the subject subpoena seeks information relevant to the claims and defenses in this case, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.