Albert v. State Bar Of California
1:22-mc-00043
E.D. Cal.Apr 7, 2022Background
- Underlying matter: bankruptcy adversary proceeding in C.D. Cal. where Albert‑Sheridan sued the State Bar of California; Bar subpoenaed non‑party attorney Leslie Westmoreland for deposition and documents.
- Subpoena commanded compliance in Fresno (E.D. Cal.); Bar served Westmoreland and later filed a motion to compel in this District after unsuccessful scheduling and production attempts.
- Westmoreland repeatedly delayed or provided inconsistent reasons (family illness, personal illness), failed to produce documents, and did not file an opposition to the motion to compel.
- Albert‑Sheridan (the plaintiff in the bankruptcy case) filed an opposition and sought sanctions; she also moved for recusal and transfer of the motion to the bankruptcy court.
- Court found the motion properly before it, concluded Albert‑Sheridan lacked standing to oppose, granted the motion to compel, set a date for production and Zoom deposition, and denied Albert‑Sheridan’s sanctions and recusal/transfer requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State Bar) | Defendant's Argument (Albert‑Sheridan / Westmoreland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum to enforce subpoena under Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(i) | Compliance is in E.D. Cal., so this court may enforce the subpoena | Transfer/enforcement should be handled by issuing (bankruptcy) court | Motion properly before E.D. Cal.; court has jurisdiction to enforce because compliance sought here |
| Transfer of subpoena‑enforcement motion under Rule 45(f) | No consent to transfer; no exceptional circumstances warranting transfer | Albert‑Sheridan sought transfer to issuing court (bankruptcy court) | Denied transfer: no consent and no exceptional circumstances found |
| Standing to object to non‑party subpoena | Bar: objections must come from person served (Westmoreland); Albert‑Sheridan lacks standing | Albert‑Sheridan opposed and sought sanctions despite not being the subpoenaed non‑party | Court held Albert‑Sheridan lacks standing to oppose the subpoena and denied her sanctions request |
| Whether to compel production/deposition for failure to comply and failure to meet‑and‑confer | Bar: Westmoreland failed to produce documents, missed deposition, did not meaningfully confer under Local Rule 251; court order needed before discovery cutoff | Westmoreland gave intermittent reasons for delay and signaled willingness to comply but filed no opposition | Court granted motion to compel, ordered production and Zoom deposition by set date, warned of contempt under Rule 45(g) for noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Viltrakis, 108 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 1997) (party generally lacks standing to object to subpoena served on a nonparty)
- In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated Dec. 10, 1987, 926 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. 1991) (nonparty targeted by subpoena is proper objector; third parties lack standing)
- Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 965 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (limited circumstances allow a party to object on behalf of nonparty where party has personal right or privilege)
- In re DMCA Subpoena to Reddit, Inc., 441 F. Supp. 3d 875 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (motions to quash or compel subpoenas concern non‑dispositive ancillary discovery matters)