Banga v. Kanios

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 NAVJEET SINGH BANGA, 10 Case No. 16-cv-04270-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 12 DENYING IN PART MOTION TO CHRIS GUS KANIOS, et al., QUASH 13 Defendants. 14

15 Non-party Kamlesh Banga moves to quash Defendants’ subpoena requesting 16 (1) appearance and testimony at trial and (2) production of various categories of documents. The 17 motion to quash Defendants’ subpoena is denied to the extent the subpoena requests appearance 18 and testimony at trial. 19 Defendants’ document requests, on the other hand, would subject Kamlesh Banga to an 20 undue burden. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv). Defendants’ requests are—once again— 21 extremely broad. See, e.g., Dkt. 566, at 15 (requesting “[a]ny and all COMMUNICATIONS YOU 22 had with any PERSON relating to the COMPLAINT and the lawsuit based on the 23 COMPLAINT”). Defendants appear to be improperly attempting to gain additional discovery by 24 requesting large numbers of documents via trial subpoena. See nSight, Inc. v. Peoplesoft, Inc., No. 25 4-cv-3836, 2006 WL 988807, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2006) (trial subpoenas may secure 26 documents under specific, limited circumstances). The motion to quash is granted with regard to 27 Defendants’ document requests. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 Dated: February 24, 2024 4 RICHARD SEEBORG 5 Chief United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER CASE No. 16-cv-04270-RS