*1 Third party Rafael Urena, appearing pro se, filed a motion to quash a subpoena served by Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. (Dkt. No. 120.) Plaintiff filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 148.) Mr. Urena did not file a reply. The motion came on for hearing on August 1, 2024.[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.)

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).

Document Request No. 1 calls for bank statements from November 2017 to November 2018. Plaintiff explained on the record that this request is based on an argument Defendants are making to rebut her claim for damages. Based on Plaintiff's explanation, Document Request No. 1 may be narrowed to the portions of the bank statements that are necessary for authentication, and that reflect deposits or transfers of cash or funds into Mr. Urena's account(s) during this time frame, and the sources of those deposits or transfers. The court asked Mr. Urena to collect those documents pending the continued hearing on this matter on August 16, 2024.

*2 Document Request No. 3 calls for arrest records from 2014 through 2018. Mr. Urena responds that he does not have responsive records and, alternatively, states that this request violates his right of privacy. The court sustains Mr. Urena's objections without prejudice. This request does not seek evidence of prior convictions. Fed. R. Evid. 609. Mr. Urena states that he does not have responsive documents and therefore this request appears to be moot. Finally, Plaintiff has not shown any need for arrest records under the circumstances of this case that would outweigh Mr. Urena's privacy interests. Charges are not evidence and would not show wrongdoing by Mr. Urena.

Document Request Nos. 4, 6, and 10 call for essentially all written and electronic communications, and in-person or remote meetings or conversations, between Mr. Urena and Laura Ruano, Thomas Monteleone (including his company Barones, Inc.), or both. Document Request No. 10 also calls for documents related to such interactions or transactions. Plaintiff explained that Defendants have produced evidence of phone calls and email or other electronic communications. The court asked Mr. Urena to collect these documents pending the continued hearing on this matter on August 16, 2024. The court notes that Mr. Urena's documents reflecting interactions or transactions with Ms. Ruano, Mr. Monteleone or Barones may be internal and therefore not in the possession, custody or control of Defendants.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that a continued hearing on Mr. Urena's motion to quash is set on August 16, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. PST by Zoom. Mr. Urena should be prepared to address the court regarding Document Request Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 10 as described above. In addition, the court will address with the participants the remaining document requests and deposition. The steps to access the Zoom webinar are available on Judge Rosenberg's Procedures & Schedules page (www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-alicia-g-rosenberg).