Stemmelin v. Matterport, Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-04168
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Stemmelin v. Matterport, Judge Alsup granted Matterport’s motion to quash a broad subpoena seeking an unnamed representative to support 155 exhibits.
John Stemmelin and Matterport, Inc.; the ruling quashed Stemmelin’s subpoena but allowed a new subpoena directed to a named individual.
What happened
In Stemmelin v. Matterport, Inc., John Stemmelin’s lawyer subpoenaed Matterport to provide a representative or records custodian to testify about the foundation for admitting 155 trial exhibits.
Matterport argued that the subpoena did not identify the exhibits or a specific person and would impose an unfair burden. The court agreed that the request was too broad and came too late, because Matterport would have to review thousands of pages and determine the foundation for each exhibit, including exhibits that did not come from Matterport.
Judge Alsup granted Matterport’s motion to quash the subpoena. The order allowed Stemmelin to serve a new subpoena directed to a named individual who could testify about foundation.
The detailed version
- Stemmelin v. Matterport, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-04168
- William Alsup
- Jan. 25, 2023
Background
Shortly before trial, counsel for John Stemmelin served Matterport, Inc. with a subpoena requiring a “Matterport, Inc. Representative/Keeper of Records” to appear and lay the foundation for admitting Stemmelin’s trial exhibits. The subpoena did not identify a specific individual or specify which exhibits the representative would need to address. It sought testimony concerning 155 exhibits.
Matterport moved to quash the subpoena under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Matterport argued that the subpoena did not identify the exhibits or the person expected to testify and imposed an undue burden.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 45 requires reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to a subpoena. It also requires a court to quash a subpoena that does not allow reasonable time to comply or subjects a person to undue burden.
The court found that the subpoena was exceptionally broad and tardy. Matterport would have had to review thousands of pages shortly before trial to determine which representative or representatives could testify about the foundation for each exhibit. Those representatives would also have had to consider the foundation for each level of hearsay in exhibits containing hearsay within hearsay, as well as exhibits that did not originate with Matterport. The court said that this was not what Rule 45 anticipated and suggested that Stemmelin might have been confusing trial subpoenas with the discovery procedure for identifying corporate witnesses.
Ruling
The court weighed the burden on Matterport against the value of the information to Stemmelin and held that it could not uphold a subpoena requiring an unidentified corporate representative to appear the following week and lay the foundation for 155 exhibits.
Judge William Alsup granted Matterport’s motion to quash Stemmelin’s subpoena. The order stated that this was without prejudice to serving a new subpoena directed to a named individual who could appear and lay the foundation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.