New Amsterdam Project Management Humanitarian Foundation v. Connolly ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 * * * 8 New Amsterdam Project Management Humanitarian Foundation, 9 Plaintiff, 2:18-cv-01917-RCJ-EJY 10 v. ORDER 11 Kevin B. Connolly, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 The Plaintiff won a judgment against the Defendants in the United States District Court for 15 the Central District of California. In order to satisfy this judgment, the Plaintiff has had to pursue 16 post-judgment discovery. In one such avenue of discovery, the Central District of California issued 17 a subpoena on T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile) with four requests to produce documents stored in 18 Nevada. The first three requests are for the documents associated with Defendant Margaret 19 Laughrin, Defendant Hartford Holding Corporation, and “Regina Trust”1. The last request seeks 20 information regarding the Nevada phone numbers associated with Defendant Laughrin. The 21 requested information includes the following: 22 a. Identify the name(s), address(es) and/or email address(es) of the subscriber(s); b. Identify the account number assigned to the Nevada Phone Number; 23 c. Relate to payments received by You for the account of this Phone Number; d. Relate to the method or means of payments (i.e., credit card, wire transfer, check, 24 etc.) received by You for the account of this Phone Number; e. Relate to account statements and invoices issued by You to the subscriber(s); 25 f. Relate to records of phone calls made and received (including local, roaming and incoming call records); and 26 g. Relate to numeric (non-content) detail records of text messages (including SMS), multimedia (including MMS) and other data transmission made and 27 received (including any IP address assigned for each session or connection, and the 1 date and time the messages were sent and received). 2 In a meet and confer conference between T-Mobile and the Plaintiff, T-Mobile refused to 3 comply with the subpoena but agreed not to challenge a motion to compel. T-Mobile argued that 4 it cannot legally produce the information, because one of the number’s is associated with a 5 California billing address, so California law applies and restricts production. T-Mobile relies on 6 two California statutes for its position. First, California Civil Procedure Code § 1985.3(f) provides: 7 “A subpoena duces tecum for personal records maintained by a telephone corporation which is a 8 public utility . . . shall not be valid or effective unless it includes a consent to release, signed by 9 the consumer whose records are requested, as required by Section 2891 of the Public Utilities 10 Code.” Second, California Public Utilities Code § 2891(a) provides in part: “No telephone . . . 11 corporation shall make available to any other person or corporation, without first obtaining the 12 residential subscriber’s consent, in writing, any of the following information: (1) The subscriber’s 13 personal calling patterns . . . [and] (2) [t]he residential subscriber’s credit or other personal 14 financial information . . . .” 15 The Plaintiff moves this Court to compel T-Mobile to produce the subpoenaed information 16 and documents, and T-Mobile did not respond. The Plaintiff correctly argues that the federal law 17 of subpoenas—not California state law applies. “[I]n federal question cases the clear weight of 18 authority and logic supports reference to federal law on the issue of the existence and scope of an 19 asserted privilege.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of California, 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 20 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S. Ct. 2119, 48 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1976) (quoting Heathman v. U.S. 21 Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 503 F.2d 1032, 1034 (9th Cir. 1974)). 22 In fact, a California district court specifically held that the California statutes do not apply 23 to federally issued subpoenas. In Kaur v. City of Lodi, AT&T Mobility made a similar argument 24 based on the same two statutes, and the party seeking the production moved to compel compliance 25 with the subpoena. No. 2:14-cv-0828 TLN AC, 2016 WL 10679575, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 26 2016). That court specifically noted that the statutory language is limited to California issued 27 subpoenas. Id. California Civil Procedure Code § 1985.3(a) defines subpoena as one that is “issued or served in connection with any civil action or proceeding pursuant to this code.” Therefore, the 2|| Court disagrees with T-Mobile’s position and grants the Plaintiff's motion. 3|| CONCLUSION 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance re Subpoena 5|| (ECF No. 1) is granted. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that T-Mobile USA, Inc. shall produce the requested || documents within twenty-one days of the filing of this order. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 26th day of August, 2019. 10 — ROBERFC.JONES 12 United Stat¢s District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27