IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 14, 2011
TODD VATALARO, PLAINTIFF,
MICROSTRATEGY INC. DBA MSIMICROSTRATEGY INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Previously pending on this court's law and motion calendar for November 10, 2011, was defendant's motion to quash thirty-two subpoenas or in the alternative for protective order, and for sanctions, filed October 4, 2011. Plaintiff filed an opposition, to which defendant filed a reply. Gina Guarienti Cook appeared for defendant. Robin Perkins appeared for plaintiff. The subpoenaed third parties did not make an appearance. After reviewing the papers and hearing oral argument, the court found the service of so many subpoenas unnecessarily burdensome at present to defendant, i.e., potentially upsetting to established client relationships. The court now issues the following summary order.
For the reasons set forth at hearing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's motion to quash subpoenas, filed October 4, 2011, is granted without prejudice.
2. Both parties' requests for sanctions are denied.
3. Plaintiff shall formulate non-redundant discovery requests to defendant based on the discovery requested in the subpoenas. After defendant responds to the requests and if plaintiff believes that he still has acquired insufficient information, the parties shall meet and confer to further alleviate the necessity of serving third party subpoenas. If the meet and confer is not successful, and there does appear to be information relevant to a claim or defense which can only be acquired from third parties, plaintiff may serve narrowly tailored third party subpoenas for that otherwise unavailable information.
4. Should either party bring a renewed motion related to the instant discovery, the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint statement in compliance with E.D. Local Rule 251.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.