Banga v. Kanios
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:16-cv-04270
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Banga v. Kanios, Judge Seeborg granted in part and denied in part Banga’s motion to quash defendants’ trial subpoena.
Navjeet Singh Banga and the defendants, concerning Banga’s trial testimony and the subpoena’s document requests.
What happened
In Banga v. Kanios, Navjeet Singh Banga asked the court to cancel a subpoena requiring him to testify at trial and provide documents. He argued that testifying would be too burdensome because he was representing himself.
The court denied the request concerning testimony because Banga would attend the bench trial and had said he planned to testify in his own case. The court granted the request concerning document production because the requests were extremely broad and appeared to seek additional discovery after the discovery deadline.
Judge Richard Seeborg therefore granted in part and denied in part Banga’s motion to quash the subpoena. The court also reminded Banga that representing himself did not excuse him from following court rules.
The detailed version
- Banga v. Kanios · No. 3:16-cv-04270
- Richard Seeborg
- Feb. 20, 2024
Background
Navjeet Singh Banga moved to quash, or cancel, a subpoena issued by the defendants. The subpoena sought his testimony at trial and documents in several categories. Banga was representing himself and argued that requiring him to testify would be unduly burdensome.
Testimony Request
The court denied Banga’s motion to quash the subpoena to the extent it required him to testify at trial. The court noted that Banga would be present throughout the upcoming bench trial and had previously said he intended to testify during his own case. The court also stated that Banga’s self-represented status did not excuse him from following applicable court rules.
Document Requests
The court granted Banga’s motion to quash the subpoena to the extent it required him to produce documents. It found the defendants’ requests extremely broad, including a request for any documents relating to communications about Banga’s enrollment as a student at JFKU. The court noted that fact discovery had closed on December 6, 2019, and that the defendants appeared to be trying to obtain additional discovery through a trial subpoena. The court referred to authority stating that trial subpoenas may secure documents only in specific, limited circumstances.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part Banga’s motion to quash. Separately from the subpoena ruling, the court instructed Banga to email the defendants a copy of the testimony he planned to give on his own behalf by 5:00 p.m. on February 23, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.