Little

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRAND LITTLE, Case No. 23-cv-01098-AGT

Plaintiff,

DISCOVERY ORDER

v. Re: Dkt. No.

PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCUREMENT,

LLC, et al., Defendants.

1. Little may subpoena the California, Oregon, and Washington fish and wildlife departments for ex vessel sales records dating back to the 1999/2000 season. The agencies may move to quash the subpoenas if they have grounds for doing so. The agencies, not Pa- cific Seafood, have standing to object based on burden. See Finley v. Pulcrano, No. C 08- 0248 PVT, 2008 WL 4500862, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2008) (“A party does not have stand- ing to quash a subpoena on the basis that the non-party recipient of the subpoena would be subjected to an undue burden . . . .”). It remains to be seen how quickly the agencies will be able to gather and produce twenty-four years of ex vessel sales records. The Court isn’t interested in delaying the case for months and months (or years) waiting for these records. The records have some rele- vance, but Little hasn’t established that they are critical to his ability to successfully amend his complaint. If obtaining them will…