Stemmelin v. Matterport, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 25, 2023
• Docket: 3:20-cv-04168
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

10 JOHN STEMMELIN, 11 Plaintiff, No. C 20-04168 WHA

12 v.

13 MATTERPORT, INC., ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH 14 Defendant.

15 16 In the days preceding trial, counsel for plaintiff served a subpoena on defendant 17 corporation directing the appearance of “Matterport, Inc. Representative/Keeper of Records for 18 the purpose of laying foundation for admission of plaintiff’s trial exhibits into evidence c/o Its 19 Registered Agent, Matthew Zinn, 352 E. Java Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94089” (Dkt. No. 222-1). 20 Defendant now moves to quash this subpoena. According to defendant, plaintiff’s subpoena is 21 improper because it “does not state which Exhibits Matterport’s representative should be ready 22 to testify about[,]” “does not name an individual who should be prepared to testify,” and 23 “subjects Matterport to an undue burden” in violation of Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil 24 Procedure (Dkt. No. 227). The Court granted defendant’s administrative motion to hear the 25 motion to quash at the final pretrial conference. This order follows oral argument. 26 Rule 45 governs the issuance of subpoenas that command an individual to attend trial and 27 produce documents for it. Note there is no language in Rule 45 that neatly tracks Rule 1 representatives during discovery, requiring “reasonable particularity” in matters for 2 examination (as well as a meet-and-confer). Perhaps it never seemed necessary to include 3 analogous language in Rule 45 because parties ordinarily use discovery to determine specific 4 representatives to be subpoenaed, and specific documents to be supplied, for admitting specific 5 exhibits into evidence by the time trial is around the corner. Not so here. 6 In some instances, parties do subpoena unidentified custodians of records to testify at 7 trial. However, this is generally done to lay a foundation for a narrow class of documents to be 8 introduced under the business records exception. See, e.g., U.S.A. v. Suris, 2019 WL 9 13176287, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2019) (Judge S. James Otero); see also Alas v. AT&T 10 Servs., 2021 WL 4893372, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2021) (Judge Virginia A. Phillips). 11 Plaintiff, however, seeks a “Matterport, Inc. Representative/Keeper of Records” who can 12 appear and testify for the purpose of laying a foundation for each of his (155) trial exhibits. 13 Not only would plaintiff’s subpoena require defendant to pore over thousands of pages on the 14 eve of trial to determine which representative(s) can testify for this purpose, but it would also 15 require the representative(s) to do plaintiff’s homework of identifying a foundation (or lack 16 thereof) for admission of plaintiff’s trial exhibits. The representative(s) would be forced to 17 consider foundations for admission of each level of hearsay for trial exhibits that contain 18 hearsay within hearsay, for example. See Fed. R. Evid. 805. Moreover, the representative(s) 19 would be forced to identify foundations for admission of trial exhibits that did not even 20 originate with defendant. Surely none of this is anticipated by Rule 45. It appears plaintiff 21 may be attempting to use Rule 45 to compensate for his failure to use Rule 30(b)(6) in 22 discovery, or, more benignly, confusing the roles of these two rules. But his request would not 23 have withstood judicial scrutiny under Rule 30(b)(6) either. It is exceptionally broad. 24 In any event, reasonable steps must be taken to avoid imposing undue burden or expense 25 on the individual to whom a Rule 45 subpoena is subject. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). Indeed, 26 Rule 45 requires a court to quash a subpoena that, inter alia, “fails to allow a reasonable time 27 to comply” and “subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i), (iv). 1 party against the value of the information to the serving party[.]” Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 2 232 F.R.D. 633, 637 (C.D. Cal. 2005) Judge Rosalyn Merle Chapman). “[O]ther factors a 3 court should consider include the relevance of the requested information and the breadth or 4 specificity of the discovery request.” Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, 5 Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406, 409-10 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (Judge Suzanne H. Segal) (citing Moon, 6 232 F.R.D. at 637). 7 Weighing the burden to defendant against the value of the information to plaintiff — with 8 an eye to the broad and tardy nature of the request — the Court cannot uphold a subpoena that 9 directs an unidentified corporate designee to appear next week and lay a foundation for 155 10 trial exhibits. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to quash plaintiff's subpoena is GRANTED. 11 This is without prejudice to a fresh subpoena directed at any named individual to appear and 12 lay foundation. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: January 25, 2023. 16 Pree

LLIAM ALSUP 4 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28