Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. California Drop Forge Incorporated et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority,
Plaintiff,
v.
California Drop Forge Incorporated, et al.,
Defendants.
No. MC-25-00032-PHX-DJH
ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena
Served on Robert Galbraith (“Motion to Compel”) (Doc. 1), filed by Plaintiff Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”). Metro seeks Mr.
Galbraith’s testimony and production of documents in connection with its environmental
contamination and recovery lawsuit against California Drop Forge and other corporations
in the Central District of California. See Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority v. California Drop Forge, Inc, et al, United States District
Court Case No. 2:23-cv-01728-MWF-KS (the “Underlying Action”). The Court ordered
Mr. Galbraith to respond to the Motion or file a notice of compliance within fourteen
days of the date of service. (Doc. 5). The time to do so has expired, and Galbraith has
done neither.
I. The Subpoena
The subpoena seeks both Galbraith’s testimony and his production of documents
in connection with the Underlying Action. (Doc. 1-1 at 41, Ex. B, Subpoena). It was
Case 2:25-mc-00032-DJH Document 9 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
issued on June 17, 2025, and Galbraith was personally served on June 24, 2025. (Id.;
Doc. 1-1 at 51, Ex. C, Proof of Service of Subpoena). Metro says Galbraith failed to
show up to his deposition, failed to produce pertinent documents, and did not otherwise
respond to the subpoena.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a subpoena commands each person to
whom it is directed to attend and give testimony. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). A
properly issued subpoena is itself a court order. Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland,
Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 494 n.5 (9th Cir. 1983). “[A] court determining the propriety of a
subpoena balances the relevance of the discovery sought, the requesting party’s need, and
the potential hardship to the party subject to the subpoena.” Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234
F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citation omitted). The court may compel compliance
with a subpoena “where the nonparty has not formally objected but has instead failed to
respond.” In re Subpoena to VaughnPerling, 2019 WL 8012372, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2,
2019); see also Fujikura Ltd. v. Finisar Corp., 2015 WL 5782351, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct.
5, 2015 (“The court has discretion to determine whether to grant a motion to compel”
compliance with a Rule 45 subpoena.) (citation omitted).
Metro asserts that Galbraith was the inspector and safety manager of California
Drop Forge between 2004 through 2016. (Doc. 1 at 5). According to Metro, Galbraith
has critical information about California Drop Forge’s knowledge about the company’s
contamination and internal procedures and policies that might have caused the
contamination. (Id. at 5–6). Metro maintains that Galbraith’s testimony and the
documents in his possession from his time working at the company are essential in the
underlying litigation. (Id.) Because Galbraith has not objected to the subpoena, and the
time to do so has now passed, the Court will grant Metro’s request. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(d)(2)(B). Galbraith is further advised that failure to comply with the subpoena may
subject him to contempt. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(1); 45(g); Pennwalt, 708 F.2d at 494.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Case 2:25-mc-00032-DJH Document 9 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Transportation Authority’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum
(Doc.1) and Motion for Ruling on Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition
Subpoena (Doc. 8) are both granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robert Galbraith is ordered to comply with all
parts of the subpoena, including attending and participating in a deposition and turning
over pertinent documents. Failure to comply with the subpoena may result in sanctions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Metro shall file a Status Report with the Court
on or before February 2, 2026.
Dated this 1st day of December, 2025.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-mc-00032-DJH Document 9 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 3