*1 In this contempt proceeding, the parties have engaged in extensive discovery motion practice. The Court's review of the docket reveals at least ten (10) motions or ex parte applications related to discovery since this matter was re-opened in April 2014. Many of the discovery disputes appear to involve routine issues that parties typically resolve through the good faith meet and confer process. The Court concludes that the parties have not engaged in good faith meet and confers prior to filing discovery motions, as required by both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and this Court's Local Rules (see L.R. 37-1).

The current motion is further evidence of the parties' failure to engage in a good faith meet and confer. Defendants seek to quash subpoenas to financial institutions and seek review on shortened time (the ex parte application was filed on October 15 and set for hearing on October 20). The FTC apparently informed Defendants of its intent to serve such subpoenas in September 2015, but the parties fail to explain why a good faith meet and confer did not take place in September if Defendants opposed these subpoenas. The meet and confer apparently took place on October 5, 2015 (Linn Decl. ¶¶ 7-8), but the conclusory description of the meeting in the Linn declaration leads the Court to believe that the effort involved failed to rise to the level of good faith on either side.

The Court finds that certain of Defendants' objections to the subpoenas are not persuasive. For example, Defendants summarily contend that requiring the targeted third party banks to comply with the subpoenas “would permit a significant invasion into the Defendants' privacy.” (Jt. Stip. at 4). However, as a general rule, “a party has no standing to seek to quash a subpoena issued to a non-party to the action.” Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Assoc. v. Iny, 2014 WL 1796216, at *1 (D. Nev. May 6, 2014). While some courts have found that a party has a right to move to quash subpoenas where the party has a personal right or privilege in the documents requested, there is not clear guidance on this issue. Id. at *2 (citing cases documenting split in lower courts). Nonetheless, even assuming for purposes of this motion that Defendants do have standing to challenge a subpoena on privacy grounds, Defendants have not shown why the operative protective order is not sufficient to protect those interests. Id. at *3 (defendants' privacy interests in bank's financial records may be adequately protected by protective order).

Similarly, Defendants' argument that it would be unduly burdensome for the banks to produce their financial records is unavailing. “A party generally does not have standing to object to a subpoena served on a non-party on grounds of the undue burden imposed on the non-party, especially where the non-party itself has not objected.” 1st Technology, LLC v. Rational Enterprises, Ltda., 2007 WL 5596692, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 13, 2007).

Nevertheless, the Court also finds that Defendants' overbreadth objections may be valid. “It is well established that the scope of discovery under a subpoena issued pursuant to Rule 45 is the same as the scope of discovery allowed under Rule 26(b)(1).” Painters Joint Comm. v. Emp. Painters Trust health & Welfare Fund, 2011 WL 4573349, at *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2011) (collecting cases). In particular, a party may not attempt to obtain discovery from a third party that a court has already found irrelevant or overbroad when propounded on an opposing party. See Moon v. SCP Pool Corporation, 232 F.R.D. 633, 636-37 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (court may consider a party's motion to quash a non-party subpoena in “unusual circumstances,” where, for instance, the subpoena is overbroad on its face); see also In re Ashworth, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2002 WL 33009225, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 10, 2002) (“[T]his Court finds defendants have standing to move to quash the third party subpoenas under Rule 45 on overbreadth grounds.”).

*2 Here, it is clear that Defendants' finances are relevant to the instant action, at least to the extent that they reflect the allegedly ill-gotten gains Defendants obtained from the asserted violation of the Court's Permanent Injunction. That does not mean that every single document pertaining to any account related in any way to any or all Defendants is relevant to this action. Even if, as the FTC contends, the specific banks and bank accounts targeted in the subpoenas were intentionally and selectively chosen, the FTC has not explained why the sweeping breadth of the data requested pertaining to each of these accounts is necessary to the government's prosecution of this action. The FTC should be on notice that the Court disapproves of such requests as the Court previously denied the FTC's motion to compel similar financial data directly from Defendants on overbreadth grounds. (See Dkt. No. 155). Requests for documents should be narrowly tailored to obtain relevant information.

Because the parties failed to hold a good faith meet and confer, and these are the type of routine discovery concerns that frequently are resolved through the meet and confer process, the Court DENIES the Motion to Quash without prejudice to renewing the Motion, as a properly noticed Motion, following the meet and confer process.

The Court ORDERS that production of records in response to the subpoenas is STAYED for 21 days to allow the parties to hold a meet and confer and resolve the issues. If no resolution is reached, Defendants may renew their motion as a properly noticed motion. The FTC shall serve a copy of this Order on all financial institutions served with the subpoenas at issue within three (3) days of the date of this Order. At the hearing, the FTC inquired about its obligations regarding documents produced by City National. The Court ORDERS the FTC to refrain from review of those records until either a resolution is reached through the meet and confer process, the 21 day period expires or a further order of the Court is issued.

The Court imposes the following protocols for future discovery disputes:

1) To initiate a discovery meet and confer, the moving party must serve a letter in strict compliance with Local Rule 37-1. The letter must be attached to any future discovery motion as an exhibit.

2) The parties must engage in a good faith meet and confer in a timely manner. Lead counsel must participate in the meet and confer. A court reporter must record the meet and confer. The parties shall share evenly the expense of the court reporter, either by each paying half the expenses or by alternating the party that covers the cost. The transcript of the meet and confer shall be attached as an exhibit to any future discovery motion. The transcript must reflect offers of compromise from the parties and a sincere effort to resolve the dispute without Court intervention.

3) No ex parte applications shall be filed except for routine matters, such as stipulations for extensions of deadlines, or in the case of “a situation requiring extraordinary or urgent relief.” Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995).

4) Joint stipulations shall not exceed 20 pages, unless permission is requested and granted by the Court.

5) Exhibits in support of or in opposition to discovery motions shall be limited to five per side. If more exhibits are essential, the moving party must submit a separate declaration in support of the additional exhibits and establish that such exhibits are essential to the Court's understanding of the motion.

6) All discovery motions shall be heard before the Magistrate Judge in Courtroom 590 of the Roybal Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Lead counsel shall be present to argue the motion.

7) The parties are advised that the Court will strictly apply Rule 37, which provides in relevant part that if a discovery motion is denied, “the court may issue any protective order authorized under Rule 26(c) and must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the movant, the attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party [ ] who opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). The Rule also provides for a similar award of reasonable expenses against a party opposing a meritorious motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Whichever side brings the matter to the Court, reasonable expenses may be awarded against the non-prevailing party in the underlying discovery dispute. The Court will consider both monetary sanctions and the recommendation of other forms of sanctions, such as evidentiary sanctions, where appropriate.

*3 IT IS SO ORDERED.