Schmidt v. United States

Full title: LONNIE G. SCHMIDT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 24, 2013

No. 2:09-cv-0660 LKK GGH PS (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-0660 LKK GGH PS

04-24-2013

LONNIE G. SCHMIDT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

Gregory G. Hollows

ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed ten subpoenas on non-parties which reflect service between April 5 and 9, 2013, and require production of documents between April 22 and 24, 2013. (Dkt. nos. 85-94.) Some of the subpoenaed parties have filed motions to quash. The scheduling order in this case, which recently extended the discovery cutoff from January 24, 2013 to April 24, 2013, requires:

All discovery is left open, save and except that it shall be so conducted as to be completed by [April 24, 2013]. The word "completed" means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with. Motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the undersigned's calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and so that such motions will be heard not later than [two weeks prior to the discovery cutoff].

(Dkt. nos. 69, 80.) The subpoenas were served so close to the discovery cutoff that they violate the terms of the order. By waiting until the eleventh hour to propound this discovery, plaintiffs have effectively ensured that any disputes concerning such subpoenas could not possibly be resolved by April 24, 2013. Plaintiffs should have moved for an extension to the discovery cutoff long ago if they had a reasonable excuse for waiting so long to issue the subpoenas.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. While the court will not interfere with voluntary compliance with the subpoenas, neither will the court hear motions to enforce the subpoenas. The subpoenas, filed April 12 and 17, 2013, (dkt. nos. 85-94), will not be enforced; and

2. The motion to quash, filed April 23, 2013, by Lawrence Warfield and Warfield and Company, (dkt. no. 95), is denied as moot and vacated from the calendar for May 23, 2013.

3. The Clerk shall serve Lawrence Warfield and Warfield and Company at the address indicated in their motions.

Gregory G. Hollows

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE