Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 STAR MUTUAL RRG INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00893-KES-HBK

12 Plaintiff, AMENDED1 ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT RAYGOZA’S MOTION TO

13 v. THE EXTENT FEDERICO AUGILAR

VENEGAS SHALL APPEAR ON

14 FEDERICO AGUILAR VENEGAS d/b/a SEPTEMBER 11, 2026 TO SHOW CAUSE

FSW TRANSPORT, and VANESSA WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN

15 RAYGOZA. CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY

WITH A SUBPOENA

16 Defendants.

(Doc. 31)

17

18

19 Pending before the Court is Defendant Vanessa Raygoza’s motion for contempt sanctions

20 against defaulted defendant Federico Aguilar Venegas, or, in the alternative, motion for an order

21 to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt, filed July 2, 2026. (Doc. 31,

22 “Motion”). Defendant submits the declaration of Attorney Germain Labat, with exhibits, in

23 support of the motion. (Doc. 31-1). Defendant seeks an order directing defaulted defendant

24 Aguilar Venegas to appear for a deposition, produce the documents requested in the subpoena,

25 and pay $9,406.70 in attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion. (Doc. 31 at 8). In

26 the alternative, Defendant seeks an order to show cause why Aguilar Venegas should not be held

27

1 Amended to revise the date and time for the Show Cause Hearing from September 4, 2026 to September

28 11, 2026.

1 in contempt for failing to produce documents in response to the subpoena. (Id. at 9). Aguilar

2 Venegas has not filed an opposition, and the time to do so has passed. Local Rule 230(c). For the

3 reasons below, the Court grants the motion in part.

4 BACKGROUND

5 This subpoena enforcement motion arises from a declaratory-relief action in which

6 Plaintiff seeks declarations that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Augilar Venegas under a

7 Commercial Auto Insurance Policy in connection with Defendant’s claim for personal injuries

8 sustained on January 25, 2025. Defendant alleges she was struck by Augilar Venegas’ vehicle

9 while crossing the street, resulting in severe injuries, including the loss of her fetus and loss of her

10 legs. (Doc. 31-1 at 2; Doc. 5). On September 30, 2025, Clerk entered default against Aguilar

11 Venegas for failure to appear or defend. (Doc. 14). On October 30, 2025, Plaintiff moved for

12 default judgment against Aguilar Venegas. (Doc. 18).

13 On May 12, 2026, Defendant personally served a subpoena on Aguilar Venegas at his

14 residence, commanding him to appear for a deposition on May 29, 2026, and to produce

15 documents related to the January 25, 2025 incident, including communications between Plaintiff

16 and Aguilar Venegas. (Doc. 13-1, ¶ 6, Exh. A). Augilar Venegas did not appear on May 29,

17 2026, and he did not produce the requested documents. (Id. at ¶ 8). Defendant then obtained a

18 Certificate of Nonappearance. (Id., Exh. C).

19 ANALYSIS

20 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure distinguish between parties and non-parties in

21 setting out available discovery devices and remedies. Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada

22 Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1158 (9th Cir. 2010). When a party fails to comply with a proper discovery

23 request, the requesting party may move under Rule 37 for an order compelling discovery, and I

24 granted, may be entitled to attorney fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(1), (a)(5). By contrast, Rule 45

25 subpoenas are used to obtain documents or testimony from non-parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.

26 Although the Federal Rules do not expressly define the status of a defaulted party, the Ninth

27 Circuit has held a defaulted party, like Aguilar Venegas, should be treated as non-party for these

28 purposes. Jules, 617 F.3d at 1159.

1 A subpoena under Rule 45 must command the recipient to attend and testify or to produce

2 designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person’s

3 possession, custody or control. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). “Proper subpoenas issued by

4 attorneys on behalf of the Court are treated as orders of the Court.” McKeon v. Cent. Valley Cmty.

5 Sports Found., 2019 WL 1208986, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) (collecting cases). Service of

6 a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1).

7 The subpoena served on Aguilar Venegas complied with Rule 45. (Doc. 30-1, Exh. A). It

8 was issued from this Court. It identified the case title and civil case number, and set out the text of

9 Rule 45(c), (d), (e), and (g). It commanded Aguilar Venegas to appear for a deposition on May

10 29, 2026, and to produce documents related to the January 25, 2025 incident, including

11 communications between Plaintiff and Aguilar Venegas. (Id.). The proof of service shows that

12 Aguilar Venegas was served at 6670 Betty Drive, Visalia, California, 93291, and that service was

13 accepted on May 12, 2026. (Id. at Exh. B). Despite proper service, Aguilar Venegas failed to

14 appear for his deposition, failed to produce the requested documents, and did not file objections

15 of move to quash the subpoena.

16 Under Rule 45(g), the Court may “hold in contempt a person who, having been served,

17 fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

18 45(g). “Adequate excuse” is not a defined in the Rule and is fact-specific. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45

19 advisory committee's note to 1991 amendment; Sanchez v. Albertson's, LLC, 2022 WL 656369, at

20 *8 (D. Nev. Mar. 3, 2022) (citing Residential Constructors, LLC v. Ace Property and Casualty

21 Ins. Co., 2006 WL 8442461, at *4 (D. Nev. Aug 8, 2008) (compiling cases)). A non-party facing

22 potential contempt sanctions is entitled to a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Hyatt, 621 F.3d

23 at 696–97; see also Fisher v. Marubeni Cotton Corp., 526 F.2d 1338, 1342 (8th Cir. 1975).

24 A contempt charge against a nonparty may be criminal or civil in nature. See Falstaff

25 Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 1983). “[A] court may impose

26 civil contempt sanctions to (1) compel or coerce obedience to a court order, and/or (2)

27 compensate the contemnor’s adversary for injuries resulting from the contemnor’s

28 noncompliance.” Ahearn ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Locals 21 & 4,

1 721 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2013). The district court has wide latitude in deciding whether its

2 orders have been defied, but generally should impose the minimum sanction necessary to secure

3 compliance. Stone v. City of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 1992); Whittaker Corp.

4 v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 1992).

5 To establish civil contempt, Defendant must show by clear and convincing evidence that

6 Aguilar Venegas violated a specific and definite court order. See FTC v. Affordable Media, 179

7 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). If Defendant meets that burden, the burden shifts to Aguilar

8 Venegas to show that he took every possible step to comply and explain why compliance was not

9 possible. See Forsythe v. Brown, 281 F.R.D. 577, 587 (D. Nev. 2012). Here, Defendant has

10 shown that Aguilar Venegas violated a specific and definite court order by failing to appear for a

11 deposition and failing to produce documents pursuant to a duly issued subpoena. Accordingly,

12 Defendant’s motion for an order to show cause why Aguilar Venegas should not be held in

13 contempt is granted. See Morgutia-Johnson v. City of Fresno, 2015 WL 1021123, at *2 (E.D.

14 Cal. Sept. 16, 2010) (explaining that issuance of an order to show cause is the proper procedure

15 for enforcing no-party subpoena compliance).

16 Defendant’s request for attorney fees is premature and denied without prejudice. Aguilar

17 Venegas is advised that, in addition to other sanctions, an award of reasonable attorney’s fees

18 may be imposed as a contempt sanction. See Clockwork IP, LLC v. Aladdin One Hour HVAC,

19 Inc., 2015 WL 2450195, at *5 (D. Nev. May 22, 2015) (finding reasonable costs and attorney’s

20 fees an appropriate sanction when a “unrepresented, non-party” failed to comply with a court

21 order to produce post-default discovery).

22 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

23 1. Defendant’s motion for an order to show cause (Doc. 31) is GRANTED in part.

24 2. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this Order, Aguilar Venegas

25 shall:

26 a. Produce the documents requested in the subpoena (Doc. 31-1, Exh. A); and

27 b. Contact defense counsel and schedule a date to appear for a deposition as

28 commanded in the subpoena.

1 3. Aguilar Venegas is further ORDERED to appear before the undersigned on September

2 11, 2026 at 1:00 P.M. in Courtroom 2, 8th Floor, United States District Court, 2500

3 Tulare Street, Fresno, California, 93721 to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be held

4 in contempt and why the Court should not impose sanctions, including awarding

5 Defendant reasonable attorney’s fees, for his failure to comply with the subpoena.

6 4. The Court may discharge the Order to Show Cause and vacate the hearing if, within

7 twenty-one (21) days of service of this Order,

8 a. Aguilar Venegas files a brief explaining why the Court should not hold him in

9 contempt for failing to respond to or otherwise comply with the April 30, 2026

10 subpoena and why attorney’s fees and costs should not be awarded; or

11 b. Defendant informs the Court that Aguilar Venegas has complied with the

12 subpoena.

13 5. Failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause may subject Aguilar Venegas to

14 contempt sanctions, including monetary sanctions and an award of attorney fees.

15 6. Defendant shall serve this Order on Aguilar Venegas no later than August 10, 2026,

16 and shall file proof of service no later than August 17, 2026.

17

| Dated: _ August 4, 2026 Wiha. Mh. Bareh Zaskth

19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28