Pearson v. State of California

Background

The defendants moved to compel nonparty John Hiserodt to comply with a subpoena. The subpoena sought information about a second-opinion autopsy Hiserodt performed at the request of the guardian ad litem for plaintiff N.P. on decedent Coltrane Pearson.

The trial judge had referred discovery disputes to Magistrate Judge Beeler, and the court had given notice of its procedures for handling those disputes. The order explained that, for third-party subpoena disputes, references to “parties” in the court’s standing order include the participants in the dispute even if they are not formal parties to the underlying case.

Court’s Direction

The court directed the participants to use a joint-letter-brief process. That process allows them to discuss their positions, seek areas of compromise, and narrow and focus the issues they cannot resolve before presenting them to the court. The court said this process is generally more efficient than a formal five-week motion process.

The court acknowledged the defendants’ description of an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the dispute informally. For that reason, it did not follow its usual practice of denying the motion without prejudice in favor of the letter-brief process. Instead, the court left the motion on the calendar and kept the existing briefing schedule in effect.

Disposition

The order did not grant or deny the motion to compel. It directed the participants to engage in the joint-letter process and encouraged them to work out the dispute. The order was entered by United States Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler.