Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the City and County of San Francisco’s request for reconsideration of an order compelling nonparty San Francisco Emergency Medical Services Agency to respond to a Rule 45 subpoena. The court held that CCSF failed to satisfy the standards for reconsideration and had not adequately met and conferred regarding its objections. The court also denied as moot the plaintiff’s responsive letter brief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether CCSF satisfied the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-9 for reconsideration of the December 9, 2025 interlocutory discovery order.
- Whether CCSF could assert overbreadth, relevance, burden, or privacy objections to a subpoena served on nonparty EMSA.
- Whether the December 9 order should be reconsidered because EMSA allegedly lacked an opportunity to be heard.
Holdings
- CCSF was not entitled to reconsideration because it failed to address the governing reconsideration standard and, in any event, failed to satisfy any of Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)'s grounds.
- CCSF could not assert relevance and burden objections on EMSA's behalf because CCSF represented that EMSA was a separate third party over which CCSF had no control, and EMSA waived its objections by failing to respond to the subpoena.
- CCSF could not obtain reconsideration on EMSA's behalf based on an alleged lack of opportunity to be heard, and the record showed that EMSA had opportunities to respond to the subpoena or seek relief but took none of them.
Key quotations
“In short, the record establishes that EMSA received notice of the subpoena but failed to respond, thereby waiving all objections.” (at 1)
“To the extent the CCSF Defendants object to the subpoena because it implicates their interests, they failed to meet and confer as required by Civil Local Rule 37-1(a) and the undersigned’s standing order.” (at 1)
“The moving party may not reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the court.” (at 2)
“For the foregoing reasons, CCSF’s request for reconsideration of the court’s December 9 order is denied.” (at 6)
Factual background
Plaintiff served nonparty EMSA with a Rule 45 document subpoena on October 3, 2025. EMSA received notice but did not serve responses or objections, seek a protective order, or otherwise seek relief from the court. CCSF asserted objections concerning relevance, burden, privacy, and overbreadth, while also maintaining that EMSA was a distinct entity outside CCSF's custody and control. The court determined that CCSF had not adequately met and conferred regarding its objections and that a protective order mitigated the asserted relevance and privacy concerns.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a unilateral discovery letter seeking an order compelling EMSA to respond to a Rule 45 subpoena. On December 9, 2025, the court ordered EMSA to produce responsive documents, finding that EMSA's failure to respond waived its objections and that CCSF lacked standing to assert relevance and burden objections on EMSA's behalf. CCSF then sought reconsideration, arguing that a prior order deterred it from moving to quash, that the subpoena was overbroad and burdensome, and that EMSA lacked an opportunity to be heard. The court rejected each argument and denied reconsideration.