Dinkins v. Schinzel, 2:17-cv-01089-JAD-EJY

On August 22, 2017 a process server attempted to serve a subpoena to testify on Tina Jackson at Plaintiff Dinkins’s residence; Dinkins encountered the server and told the server to leave, so service was not effectuated.
Dinkins moved to quash the unserved subpoena, arguing Jackson was not disclosed as a witness on Defendant Schinzel’s Rule 26 disclosures and that the subpoena was harassing.
Schinzel responded that she had served a notice of deposition on Jackson earlier (June 21, 2017) because Jackson has knowledge about real property sales relevant to the dispute.
Schinzel moved for monetary and dispositive sanctions under Rules 37 and 30(d)(3), alleging Dinkins obstructed discovery and impliedly threatened the process server.
The court analyzed Rule 45 standing to quash nonparty subpoenas, Rule 26 protective orders, and the standard for imposing discovery sanctions, including dispositive sanctions only for deliberate deceptive practices.
The court denied Dinkins’s motion to quash for lack of standing (without prejudice to a protective-order motion) and denied Schinzel’s sanctions motion, finding instructing a process server to leave one’s property was not sanctionable misconduct in this context.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to quash a nonparty subpoena	Dinkins argued the subpoena should be quashed because Jackson was not listed on Schinzel’s Rule 26 disclosures and the subpoena was harassing	Schinzel argued she served a deposition notice and has a legitimate basis to depose Jackson about real property sales; Dinkins lacks standing to quash a subpoena to a nonparty	Court: Dinkins lacks standing to quash the nonparty subpoena; motion denied without prejudice to a Rule 26 protective-order motion
Sanctions for obstructing discovery / threatening process server	Dinkins denied any unlawful threat and disputed Schinzel’s factual assertions	Schinzel sought monetary and dispositive sanctions under Rules 37 and 30(d)(3), alleging obstruction and implied threats to the server	Court: Sanctions denied—no sufficient basis for monetary or dispositive sanctions; telling a process server to leave property is not sanctionable here

Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (party moving to quash bears burden of persuasion)
United States v. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. 356 (M.D.N.C.) (Rule 37 sanctions range and purposes)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (sanctions serve to deter discovery violations)
Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (dispositive sanctions appropriate only for deliberate deceptive practices)