Bauer

Bauer v. Hill

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 22, 20233:23-cv-01753California1,179 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

The subpoena in question arises out of underlying litigation pending in the Central District of California, captioned Trevor Bauer v. Lindsey C. Hill, et al., No. 8:22-cv-868 (the “California litigation”). Defendant Hill initially issued a subpoena seeking document production and deposition testimony from a non-party witness, identified as “M.R.,” on June 1, 2023. Plaintiff Bauer filed a motion to quash the subpoena in the California litigation; that motion was denied on June 28, 2023. Hill then issued an amended subpoena on July 14, 2023, seeking production of documents and M.R.’s deposition on August 17, 2023, via Zoom. Hill’s counsel avers that M.R. was personally served with the subpoena on July 15, 2023, and that Hill’s counsel made several unsuccessful attempts to speak with an attorney that Hill had reason to believe may represent M.R. (See Kaplan Decl. ¶¶ 7–12, ECF No. 3, PAGEID #13.) On August 17, 2023, M.R. failed to appear for her deposition. (See Certificate of Non-Appearance, ECF No. 3, PAGEID #44–49.) At a subsequent discovery conference on September 11, 2023, the

California court “overrule[d] all objections to the deposition being taken at all.”…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.