Lineberry v. AddShopper, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs Abby Lineberry, Terry Michael Cook, and Miguel Cordero filed a joint discovery letter concerning AddShopper, Inc.’s subpoena for Greg Dessart’s deposition. Dessart had originally been a plaintiff, but the court later dismissed his claims with prejudice, and an amended complaint removed him as a named plaintiff. The parties agreed that Dessart was therefore a nonparty. Dessart had not filed an objection or brief concerning the subpoena.

AddShopper asked the court to compel Dessart to attend the deposition. The plaintiffs requested a protective order preventing the deposition and, as the court understood the request, sought to quash the subpoena.

Motion to Compel

The court denied without prejudice AddShopper’s motion to compel. Under the federal discovery rules, a motion to compel a nonparty to comply with a subpoena must be filed in the court where compliance is required. The court determined that the place of compliance was Dessart’s home in Everett, Washington, which is within the Western District of Washington. Because the Northern District of California was not the proper court for this subpoena dispute, AddShopper’s motion was filed in the wrong district.

Motion to Quash and Protective Order

The court also denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion to quash the subpoena. Generally, a party cannot challenge a subpoena directed to a nonparty unless the party claims a personal right or privilege concerning the subpoena. The plaintiffs argued that the subpoena sought irrelevant information and imposed undue burdens, but they did not show that they had a personal right or privilege. The court therefore found that they lacked standing—the legal ability to bring this challenge.

The court separately denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ request for a protective order as moot because AddShopper had sought enforcement in the wrong court. The court also addressed the plaintiffs’ arguments about standing for completeness of the record.

Disposition

Judge Peter H. Kang denied without prejudice AddShopper’s motion for an order compelling Dessart to attend a deposition under the subpoena. He denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion to quash the subpoena and denied without prejudice their request for a protective order as moot.