Yousif v. McLaren Automotive, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 18, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00761
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAYTHAM YOUSIF, Case No. 23-cv-00761-BAS-DDL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT MCLAREN’S MOTIONS TO QUASH 14 MCLAREN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., AND FOR SANCTIONS 15 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 91, 93) 16

18 Presently before the Court are two motions filed by Defendant McLaren 19 Automotive, Inc. (“McLaren”): (1) a Motion to Quash Plaintiff Haytham Yousif Sr.’s Trial 20 Subpoena to O’Gara Coach Company San Diego, LLC (“O’Gara”), an authorized retailer 21 of McLaren vehicles (ECF No. 93); and (2) a Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Trial Subpoena 22 to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“JPMorgan”) (ECF No. 91). 23 According to Defendant’s counsel, on March 27, 2025, Plaintiff served a subpoena 24 on non-party O’Gara, seeking production of documents related to the service, 25 communications, and policies and procedures concerning the 2022 McLaren GT Coupe 26 (“Subject Vehicle”). (ECF No. 93 at 1:3–16; ECF No. 93-1 ¶ 2.) The following day, 27 Plaintiff issued a second subpoena to non-party JPMorgan, seeking financial documents 28 1 related to the lease of the Subject Vehicle. (ECF No. 91 at 1:3–8; ECF No. 91-1 ¶ 2.) 2 Plaintiff served both subpoenas well after the February 14, 2024 deadline for the close of 3 fact discovery set forth in the Court’s July 17, 2023 Scheduling Order Regulating 4 Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings (“Scheduling Order”). (ECF No. 12.) 5 Defendant McLaren timely objected to both subpoenas and now moves to quash, seeking 6 sanctions against Plaintiff and an award of attorneys’ fees. 7 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 8 PART the Motions to Quash. (ECF Nos. 91, 93.) 9 I. LEGAL STANDARD 10 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 45 govern discovery from non-parties by 11 subpoena. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 34 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir. 12 1994) (applying both rules to a motion to quash). Rule 45(d)(3)(A) requires a court to 13 quash or modify a subpoena that: “(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) 14 requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) 15 requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver 16 applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden.” Although Rule 45 is the primary rule 17 governing subpoenas, “subpoenas under Rule 45 are discovery [under Rule 26], and must 18 be utilized within the time period permitted for discovery in a case.” Integra Lifesciences 19 I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA, 190 F.R.D. 556, 561 (S.D. Cal. 1999). 20 II. ANALYSIS 21 The Court’s Scheduling Order required that “all fact discovery be completed by all 22 parties by February 14, 2024[,] . . . and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45[] must be 23 initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be 24 completed by the cut-off date.” (ECF No. 12 ¶ 5) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff waited 25 more than a year after that deadline—and barely a month before the April 28, 2025 trial 26 date—to issue the challenged subpoenas on March 27, 2025, and March 28, 2025. (ECF 27 No. 93 at 1:3–16; ECF No. 91 at 1:3–8.) Courts in this circuit treat subpoenas seeking 28 1 |}documents and issued after the discovery deadline as an “improper use of discovery 2 || devices” and routinely quash them absent leave of court or a showing of good cause, neither 3 which is present here. See Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 190 F.R.D. at 561-62. 4 || Accordingly, the subpoenas violate the Scheduling Order’s permitted time period for 5 || discovery and are therefore improper. 6 Nevertheless, although sanctions—including attorney’s fees and costs—may be 7 ||imposed for improper subpoenas, such relief remains discretionary. See Nat’l Hockey 8 || League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976); see also Telluride Mgm’t 9 || Sols., Inc. v. Telluride Inv. Grp., 55 F.3d 463, 465 (9th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, the Court 10 || declines to impose sanctions on Plaintiff or to award attorneys’ fees to Defendant McLaren 11 preparing motions in response to the untimely subpoenas, as Plaintiff has not received 12 notice from the Court or an opportunity to be heard. See Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 13 || 179 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, sanctions are not warranted at this time. 14 CONCLUSION & ORDER 15 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 16 ||PART Defendant McLaren’s motions to quash Plaintiffs trial subpoenas to 17 JPMorgan (ECF No. 91) and to O’Gara (ECF No. 93). The subpoenas are QUASHED in 18 as to the evidence sought or obtained. Plaintiff may not, at trial or in any hearing or 19 || motion, introduce any documents, testimony, or other evidence obtained—or sought to be 20 || obtained—through the quashed subpoenas. The parties are reminded that, at trial, they will 21 limited to witnesses and exhibits identified in the Final Pretrial Order. (ECF No. 47.) 22 Furthermore, to the extent Defendant’s motions also request sanctions, including 23 ||attorneys’ fees and costs, that relief is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is 24 further ORDERED to promptly serve a copy of this Order on JPMorgan and O’Gara. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 || DATED: April 18, 2025 ( Lilia. (Dyhark 28 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge -3- United States District Court 23cv0761