The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO QUASH DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS
On August 20, 2009, Plaintiff Deanna Rangel filed a complaint against her former employer and co-workers alleging violations of her civil rights, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, wrongful termination and defamation. (Doc. 2.) An answer was filed on behalf of Defendant American Medical Response West ("AMRW") on September 16, 2009. (Doc. 9.) Defendant Tracy Fisher filed an answer on October 2, 2009, and Defendant Jose Martinez filed his answer on November 17, 2009. (Docs. 12 & 17.)
On December 3, 2009, this Court issued a Scheduling Order pertaining to the various discovery deadlines, hearing dates and the jury trial. (Doc. 22.)
On January 21, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 22.) All Defendants answered the amended complaint on February 4, 2010. (Docs. 25-26.)
An informal telephonic conference regarding a discovery dispute was conducted by this Court on April 29, 2010. (Doc. 31.)
On October 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash subpoenas issued by Defendant Martinez and directed to Adolph Nava, M.D., Connie Rolland, LMFT, and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. (Docs. 32-34.) On October 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed a second motion to quash a subpoena directed to William Holvik, M.D., issued by Defendants AMRW and Martinez. (Docs. 35-37.) On December 3, 2010, Defendant Martinez filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motions to quash. (Doc. 46.) On December 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed her reply to Defendant's opposition. (Doc. 47.)
Thereafter, on December 10, 2010, this Court determined these matters were suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).*fn1 The hearing scheduled for December 17, 2010, was vacated and the matters were deemed submitted for written findings. (Doc. 48.)
The purpose of discovery is to make trial "less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent possible." United States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683 (1958). Discovery will also serve to narrow and clarify the issues in dispute. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947).
Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes the scope of discovery and states in pertinent part:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
"The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections." Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. ...