Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 24, 2024

Banga v. Kanios

Judge
Richard Seeborg
Docket
3:16-cv-04270
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Banga v. Kanios, Judge Seeborg granted in part and denied in part Kamlesh Banga’s motion to quash a trial subpoena.

Who this affects

Non-party Kamlesh Banga must comply with the subpoena’s request for trial appearance and testimony, but the defendants’ document requests were quashed.

What happened

In Banga v. Kanios, non-party Kamlesh Banga asked the court to quash a subpoena from the defendants. The subpoena sought his trial testimony and various documents.

The court denied the request as to Kamlesh Banga’s appearance and testimony at trial. It granted the request as to the document demands because they were extremely broad and would impose an undue burden.

Judge Seeborg concluded that the defendants appeared to be using the trial subpoena to obtain additional discovery, and therefore granted in part and denied in part the motion to quash.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Banga v. Kanios · No. 3:16-cv-04270
Judge
Richard Seeborg
Date
Feb. 24, 2024

Background

Non-party Kamlesh Banga moved to quash, meaning to cancel or limit, a subpoena issued by the defendants. The subpoena requested his appearance and testimony at trial and the production of various categories of documents.

Court’s Analysis

The court denied the motion to quash to the extent the subpoena required Kamlesh Banga to appear and testify at trial.

The court granted the motion as to the document requests under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A)(iv), which addresses subpoenas that impose an undue burden. The court found the requests extremely broad, including a request for any and all communications relating to the complaint and lawsuit. It stated that the defendants appeared to be improperly attempting to obtain additional discovery through a trial subpoena. The court also cited authority explaining that trial subpoenas may secure documents only under specific, limited circumstances.

Disposition

Judge Richard Seeborg ordered that the motion to quash was granted in part and denied in part: it was denied as to the request for trial appearance and testimony and granted as to the document requests.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.