Yoon v. Intuit Inc.

Background

John Yoon and non-party Scott Zienty jointly requested an “informal discovery conference” about Yoon’s effort to subpoena Zienty for a deposition. The court explained that its expedited procedures do not provide for informal discovery conferences, so it treated the submission as a request to resolve Zienty’s objections under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3) and 26(c). The court decided the dispute without oral argument.

The presiding judge had adopted a scheduling order setting July 1, 2026, as the deadline for non-expert fact discovery. The parties later stipulated that July 1 would remain the deadline for serving new written discovery requests and serving or issuing deposition notices or subpoenas, although depositions noticed or subpoenaed by that date could occur later. The presiding judge’s June 16, 2026 order continued the trial date and other deadlines but did not comment on or endorse that part of the stipulation.

Ruling

Yoon served the deposition subpoena on July 2, 2026—one day after the fact-discovery deadline and one day after the parties’ stipulated deadline for serving deposition subpoenas. The court found the subpoena untimely. Although Yoon described Zienty as “the most important witness in this matter,” the court said Yoon had not identified good cause, meaning a sufficient reason, for relief from the deadline. The court also stated that any application for such relief had to be addressed to the presiding judge who entered the scheduling order.

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi concluded that Scott Zienty need not comply with John Yoon’s untimely deposition subpoena. The opinion does not expressly state that the request was granted or denied; it states the court’s conclusion about Zienty’s obligation to comply.