E.L. v. Fernandez
2:22-cv-01527
E.D. Cal.Mar 22, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs Jessica Long and her minor daughter E.L. sued over alleged constitutional violations stemming from the seizure and slaughter of their goat, Cedar, by county representatives.
- The case includes claims against Kathie Muse (4-H representative) and Melanie Silva (CEO of Shasta District Fair & Events Center) concerning due process violations.
- Plaintiffs sought to subpoena Verizon Wireless for phone records of Muse and Silva, serving the subpoenas via required methods and filing motions to compel compliance when Verizon did not respond.
- Verizon did not move to quash or object to the subpoenas in court, nor did defendants Muse or Silva; only informal concerns about privacy, relevance, and overbreadth were voiced by Silva's counsel.
- Plaintiffs argued that the information sought was relevant to their claims and that neither the targets nor Verizon properly objected, entitling them to the discovery.
- The court was required to decide whether to grant the motions to compel Verizon to produce the requested records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compelling production of phone records | Subpoenas were properly served and unopposed; discovery relevant to claims | Silva: informal objections re privacy, relevance, overbreadth; Muse: none | Motions to compel granted; Verizon must comply |
| Standing to object to third-party subpoenas | Only the subject of records or subpoenaed party may object in court | No formal objections or motions to quash | No proper objections; basis to compel exists |
| Relevance and proportionality | Requested info is relevant, discovery is proportional | Silva's informal concerns, not formally asserted in court | Subpoenas meet standards for relevance, proportionality |
| Protection of non-parties in discovery | Proper legal procedure followed; extra protection not triggered without objection | None presented | Extra protection not needed without opposition |
Key Cases Cited
- High Tech Medical Instrumentation v. New Image Indus., 161 F.R.D. 86 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (non-parties subject to subpoenas deserve extra judicial protection)
- United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 666 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1982) (courts must weigh burden and privacy for non-party subpoenas)
- Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1988) (discovery control is within district court's wide discretion)
- California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc., 299 F.R.D. 638 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (standing to quash third-party subpoenas generally limited)