Thao v. Lynch

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied a defendant’s motion to quash subpoenas served on nonparty California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation entities because the defendant lacked standing to challenge relevance, burden, or third-party privacy interests. The court also denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ purported motion to compel and denied their request for sanctions because the motion was not properly noticed and served. The order concerns discovery related to prison housing decisions and the death of the plaintiffs’ family member.

Holdings

1. A party generally lacks standing to move to quash a subpoena served on a nonparty, except to assert a personal right or privilege in the information sought. Swarthout therefore lacked standing to object on relevance, undue-burden, privacy, or confidentiality grounds that belonged to the nonparties or third parties.
2. Plaintiffs' putative motion to compel was not properly before the court because it was not separately noticed or properly identified as a cross-motion, and the record did not establish that the nonparties had been properly served. The motion to compel was denied without prejudice.
3. Sanctions were denied because plaintiffs' motion to compel was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a party has standing to move to quash subpoenas served on nonparties based on relevance, undue burden, or privacy and confidentiality concerns belonging to third parties.
2. Whether plaintiffs' request to compel compliance with the subpoenas was properly before the court when it was not separately noticed or identified as a cross-motion and the record did not establish proper service on the nonparties.
3. Whether sanctions should be imposed when the motion to compel was denied.

Disposition

other