United States District Court, E.D. California
JAGJEEVAN K. DHALIWAL, an individual and MOHINDER S. GILL, an individual, Plaintiffs,
NIRMAL SINGH, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL (DOC. NOS. 63, 65)
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs Jagjeevan K. Dhaliwal and Mohinder S. Gill ("Plaintiffs") filed this action on April 3, 2013, alleging claims against Defendants Nirmal Singh, Nachhattar S. Chandi, Susana E. Chandi, KS Chandi & Sons, Inc., Chandi Brothers, LLC, and Valley Petroleum, Inc.
On August 16, 2013, the Court dismissed all claims against each of the Defendants except a breach of contract claim against Defendant KS Chandi & Sons, Inc. ("Chandi & Sons") and an involuntary dissolution claim against Chandi & Sons and Chandi Brothers, LLC ("Chandi Brothers") (collectively, "Defendants").
On June 5, 2014, Plaintiffs filed two motions to compel compliance with subpoenas issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 to non-parties Travis Salisbury and Polous & Polous, Inc. (Docs. 63, 65.)
Defendants filed briefs in opposition to both motions (Docs 76, 77), and former defendants Nachhattar S. Chandi and Susana E. Chandi also filed briefs in opposition to both motions (Docs. 75, 78). On July 2, 2014, Plaintiffs filed reply briefs. (Docs. 83, 84.)
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motions to compel compliance with the Rule 45 subpoenas are DENIED.
A. Factual Background
Mr. Singh is an ARCO AM PM ("AM PM") franchisee and developer who sought investors to purchase and develop AM PM gas station/convenience stores along with his brother and sister-in-law, Mr. and Ms. Chandi ("the Chandis"). The Chandis reside in Riverside County and, with Mr. Singh, own more than 10 California AM PMs. Chandi & Sons and Chandi Brothers are California corporations principally located in Turlock, California. At relevant times, Mr. Singh was the chief financial officer ("CFO") and shareholder of Chandi Brothers and Chandi & Sons. Plaintiffs are husband and wife and Canadian physicians who claim to have been bilked out of a $1.35 million investment in the AM PMs at issue in this action.
2. Relevant Procedural Background
On October 3, 2013, the parties appeared for a Scheduling Conference, and a scheduling order was issued on October 9, 2013. The scheduling order requires that all non-expert discovery be completed by April 10, 2014.
On January 9, 2014, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to Defendants' accountant Travis Salisbury ("Salisbury") demanding copies of Defendants' tax returns. (Doc. 71-1, Bradford Decl., ¶ 19.) Salisbury was informed by Defendants' counsel ...