*1 Case is called. Third party Rafael Urena appears pro se. Plaintiff states her appearance. Defense counsel is not present.

Pursuant to the Order dated August 1, 2024, the court conducted a continued hearing on third party Rafael Urena's motion to quash the subpoena served by Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. (Order, Dkt. No. 167; Motion, Dkt. Nos. 114, 120.) As stated in the prior order, Plaintiff filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 148.) Mr. Urena did not file a reply.

In this action, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for malicious prosecution against Defendants. The FAC identifies the following lawsuits in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County: (1) First Civil Action, Ruano v. Goldberg, Case No. 22VECV01054 in Superior Court; (2) Restraining Order Petition, Ruano v. Goldberg, Case No. 22VERO00392 in Superior Court; and (3) Second Civil Action, Monteleone v. Goldberg, Case No. 22VECV00402 in Superior Court. The FAC also identifies a California State Bar complaint filed by one or more Defendants, false police reports, and other communications. (E.g., FAC ¶¶ 20-22, 33, 44.) Plaintiff has since advised the court that additional complaints have been made to the State Bar and Department of Homeland Security.

The scope of discovery of a third party under Rule 45 “is the same as that applicable to Rule 34 and the other discovery rules.” Advisory Comm. Notes to 1970 Amendment.

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

The scope of Rule 26(b)(1) includes “’information that could be used to impeach a likely witness.’ ” Advisory Comm. Notes to 2015 Amendment. “District courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery purposes.” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005).

Under Rule 45, “[a] party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1).

Defendants identified Mr. Urena in their supplemental initial disclosures as an individual likely to have discoverable information that Defendants may use to support their claims or defenses under Fe.d R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). (Dkt. No. 134-1 at 41, Exh. G.) Plaintiff served a subpoena upon Mr. Urena for a deposition and production of documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. (Dkt. No. 115.)

*2 For the reasons stated on the record and in the Order dated August 1, 2024, IT IS ORDERED that third party Mr. Urena's motion to quash is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

*3 Mr. Urena, whose office is apparently located in Brooklyn, objects to the location of the deposition in New Rochelle, NY. Ms. Goldberg objects to taking the deposition at Mr. Urena's office due to safety concerns involving one of the employees.

“A district court has wide discretion to establish the time and place of depositions.” Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994). A subpoena may command a third party to attend a deposition in person only within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A); Kirkland v. United States Bankr. Ct., 75 F.4th 1030, 1045 (9th Cir. 2023). The party or attorney “must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv) (court must quash or modify subpoena that subjects person to undue burden); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (permitting person to seek protective order to protect against annoyance or undue burden/expense).

Even assuming safety concerns at Mr. Urena's own office, Plaintiff has not explained why the deposition of Mr. Urena, a third party, cannot be taken in Brooklyn at a location reasonably proximate to his office.

IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Urena's motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED PART as follows: Mr. Urena is ordered to appear in person at a deposition to be mutually agreed by counsel at a date, time, and location in Brooklyn that is reasonably proximate to Mr. Urena's office.