Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rakesh Joshi, et al v. Rocky Bluffs Property

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 22, 2012

RAKESH JOSHI, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
ROCKY BLUFFS PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

AMENDED ORDER*fn1

Plaintiffs, who are proceeding with retained counsel, bring this civil action. Pending before the court is defendant's ex parte application for an order quashing a deposition subpoena commanding the attendance of non-party witness Warner at his deposition on February 24, 2012.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1) requires that all parties be provided "reasonable notice" when a party wants to depose a person by oral questions. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3)(A)(i), the court may quash a subpoena where it ". . .fails to allow a reasonable time to comply." The court finds that such is the obvious case here. On February 13, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel served a deposition notice for Mr. Warner's appearance at his deposition on February 24, 2012. The notice was served by mail. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) specifies that, when a party must act within a particular time after service, and service is made by mail, ". . .3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a)."*fn2 This rule codifies the familiar rule of practice that documents should be served a few days sooner where service is made by mail than where service is made personally.

Applying this principle, plaintiffs' deposition notice was effectively served on February 16, 2012 (the date of actual service on February 13, 2012, plus three days to account for service by mail). This only provided defendant's counsel eight days notice, which the court finds is an unreasonably short period of time to comply with the subpoena, in violation of Rule 30(b)(1). This finding is compounded given that some of this notice period was consumed by a three-day holiday weekend from February 17th through the 20th.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion to quash (Doc. 37) the February 13, 2012, deposition subpoena for Mr. Warner's attendance at a February 24, 2012, deposition is granted and the subpoena is quashed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.