Glover v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A 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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHAD GLOVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-mc-80264-TSH
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL
Re: Dkt. No. 8
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Chad Glover moves for an order compelling non-party Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association to produce documents responsive to a subpoena issued in Glover v. Sea Ern
LLC, et al., No. 2:25-cv-02385-TL, pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington. ECF No. 8. Wells Fargo has not filed an opposition, and the time to do
so has passed. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without
oral argument and VACATES the October 22, 2026 hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons
stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion.
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Subpoena
The underlying action is an admiralty action concerning Glover’s claim for marine salvage
of the F/V Sea Ern, a 125-foot fishing vessel that was sinking in Alaskan waters. Mot. at 3.
According to Glover, approximately two years before the casualty, Sea Ern LLC obtained a
preferred ship mortgage from Wells Fargo and, in connection with obtaining that mortgage,
represented to Wells Fargo that the vessel was valued at approximately $2.5 million to $3 million.
Id.
Case 3:26-mc-80264-TSH Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 10

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
On June 22, 2026, Glover caused a subpoena duces tecum to be issued from the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington and directed to Wells Fargo.
Jacobsen Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 1-5. The subpoena identifies the underlying action as Chad Glover
v. Sea Ern LLC, No. 2:25-cv-02385-TL. Id. & Ex. A, ECF No. 1-6. The subpoena commanded
Wells Fargo to produce documents on July 15, 2026, at the offices of McGuinn, Hillsman &
Palefsky, 220 Jackson Street, Suite 350, San Francisco, California 94111. Id. ¶ 4 & Ex. A. The
subpoena seeks documents relating to Wells Fargo’s 2023 preferred ship mortgage on the F/V Sea
Ern. Id. Specifically, Glover seeks documents and communications concerning the value of the
F/V Sea Ern in connection with the mortgage, including documents concerning the value
attributed to the vessel by Wells Fargo or Sea Ern LLC. Id. The subpoena also seeks credit-
enhancement documentation, including personal loan guarantees, covenants supporting any credit-
enhancement agreement, the loan agreement, the vessel mortgage, and communications with
Wells Fargo concerning the mortgage. Id.
B. Service and Wells Fargo’s Response
On June 23, 2026, a registered process server delivered the subpoena to Christine Hong at
464 California Street in San Francisco, California. Jacobsen Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. C; Loupe Decl. ¶ 2 &
Ex. 1, ECF Nos. 1-2. The affidavit of service identifies Ms. Hong as “authorized to accept.”
Jacobsen Decl., Ex. C. Glover describes Ms. Hong as a Wells Fargo branch manager. Loupe
Decl. ¶ 2. Wells Fargo’s 2026 bank annual report filed with the Washington Secretary of State
lists 464 California Street as its principal office. Jacobsen Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. D.
Glover’s counsel’s office followed up by overnight letter on July 7, 2026, and by
telephone. Loupe Decl. ¶¶ 3-4 & Ex. 2. On July 13, Ms. Hong told Glover’s counsel’s office that
“upon service of the subpoena . . . she sent the documents to Wells Fargo’s legal department.” Id.
¶ 5. Wells Fargo’s legal department answering service then provided a reference number and a
contact in its subpoena department. Id. ¶ 6. On July 15, the date set for production, Wells Fargo
case manager Dorinda McCullum told Glover’s counsel that she had forwarded the documents to
another department for review. Jacobsen Decl. ¶ 9. No one appeared for Wells Fargo at the
deposition, which counsel closed on the record at 3:15 p.m. Id. ¶ 10. On July 31 Ms. McCullum
Case 3:26-mc-80264-TSH Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 10

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
stated that she had forwarded the subpoena to Wells Fargo’s “complex law department” and would
follow up. Loupe Decl. ¶ 9.
C. Procedural History
On August 18, 2026, Glover filed this miscellaneous action seeking an order to show cause
why Wells Fargo should not be held in civil contempt. ECF No. 1. Two days later, Glover served
the motion and supporting papers on Wells Fargo’s agent for service of process in Sacramento and
mailed copies to three other Wells Fargo addresses. Second Loupe Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 9. On
August 24, 2026, the Court denied the motion without prejudice because the record did not
identify any prior order compelling Wells Fargo to comply with the subpoena. ECF No. 3; Glover
v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A, 2026 WL 2479737 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2026). The Court explained that
Glover must first seek an order compelling compliance and that, if Wells Fargo thereafter fails to
obey such an order without adequate excuse, Glover may seek relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 45(g). Id.
Glover’s counsel’s office continued to contact Ms. McCullum. Second Loupe Decl. ¶¶ 2-
5. On August 18, Ms. McCullum confirmed that the department to which she had referred the
matter knew that a federal subpoena had been served and had not been answered. Id. ¶ 3. On
September 2 she stated that she had sent that department three emails and would send another
marked urgent. Id. ¶ 5. As of September 10, 2026, Wells Fargo had not produced a single
document. Id. ¶ 7.
On September 10, 2026, Glover filed the present motion, which asks the Court to order
Wells Fargo to produce all non-privileged responsive documents by September 21, 2026. Mot. at
7. Glover served the motion the same day on Wells Fargo’s agent for service of process by legal
messenger and by mail to three additional Wells Fargo addresses. Id. at 9.
Wells Fargo has not appeared in this action.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A subpoena may command a non-party to produce designated documents, electronically
stored information, or tangible things in its possession, custody, or control at a specified time and
place. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). The place of production must be within 100 miles of
Case 3:26-mc-80264-TSH Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 10

4
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person. Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(c)(2)(A). A person commanded to produce documents may serve a written objection, which
“must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the
subpoena is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B). If an objection is made, the serving party may
move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production,
and the order “must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from significant
expense resulting from compliance.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i)-(ii); see Legal Voice v.
Stormans Inc., 738 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) requires the
district court to shift a non-party’s costs of compliance “if those costs are significant”).
A non-party’s failure to timely object to a Rule 45 subpoena duces tecum “generally
requires the court to find that any objections have been waived.” Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232
F.R.D. 633, 636 (C.D. Cal. 2005); see Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d
1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests
within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection.”). Courts have nonetheless
declined to find waiver in unusual circumstances, such as where the subpoena is overbroad on its
face and exceeds the bounds of fair discovery and the subpoenaed witness is a non-party acting in
good faith. Moon, 232 F.R.D. at 636 (collecting cases).
“[T]he permissible scope of a subpoena to a non-party is the same as that for party
discovery.” City of San Jose v. JUM Glob., LLC, 2018 WL 4520981, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21,
2018) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, advisory committee notes to 1991 amendment, subdivision (a)
(“The non-party witness is subject to the same scope of discovery under this rule as that person
would be as a party to whom a request is addressed pursuant to Rule 34.”)). Parties may obtain
discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). On motion or on its own, the
court must limit discovery that “can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient,
less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). Where a non-party is the
target of discovery, “the ‘necessary’ restriction may be broader.” Dart Indus. Co. v. Westwood
Chem. Co., 649 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1980).
Case 3:26-mc-80264-TSH Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 10

5
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Validity and Service of the Subpoena
The subpoena designates San Francisco as the place of compliance. Jacobsen Decl. Ex. A
at 3. This Court is therefore the court for the district where compliance is required and the proper
forum for this motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i) (“At any time, on notice to the commanded
person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an
order compelling production or inspection.”).
The subpoena issued from the court where the underlying action is pending, states that
action’s title and civil-action number, is signed by Glover’s counsel of record in that action,
specifies the time and place of production, and sets out the text of Rule 45(d) and (e). Jacobsen
Decl. ¶¶ 3-4 & Ex. A at 3-5; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)-(3). The place of production is in San
Francisco, where Wells Fargo maintains its principal office. Jacobsen Decl., Ex. D; see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A). The record also indicates that defense counsel in the underlying action was
copied on the June 22, 2026 transmittal letter and attended the July 15 deposition by telephone,
and no party has objected to the subpoena. Jacobsen Decl., Ex. A at 2; id., Ex. B at 3 (Tr. 6:16-
18); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).
Rule 45(b)(1) provides that serving a subpoena “requires delivering a copy to the named
person.” Glover’s process server attests that she delivered the subpoena to Ms. Hong, whom the
affidavit identifies as authorized to accept service, at Wells Fargo’s principal office. Jacobsen
Decl., Ex. C at 1. Glover’s motion goes further and describes Ms. Hong as Wells Fargo’s “branch
manager and corporate officer,” citing Exhibits C and D to the Jacobsen Declaration. Mot. at 6.
Neither exhibit supports the latter description. Exhibit C is the affidavit of service, and Exhibit D
lists Wells Fargo’s directors and executive officers, among whom Ms. Hong does not appear.
While the Court does not rely on that characterization, it need not define the outer limits of Rule
45(b)(1) as applied to service on a corporation through a branch employee. Here, the affidavit of
service is uncontradicted, and the record shows that the subpoena reached the Wells Fargo
personnel responsible for responding to it. Ms. Hong forwarded it to the legal department, the
legal department assigned it a reference number and a case manager, and the case manager
Case 3:26-mc-80264-TSH Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 Page 5 of 10

6
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
referred it to a separate department that, by August 18, knew that a federal subpoena had been
served and had not been answered. Loupe Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, 9; Jacobsen Decl. ¶ 9; Second Loupe
Decl. ¶ 3. Because Wells Fargo has not appeared, it has not addressed whether Ms. Hong was
authorized to receive service. In addition, Glover served both the contempt motion papers and the
present motion on Wells Fargo’s agent for service of process. Second Loupe Decl. ¶ 6; Mot. at 9.
On this record, the Court finds sufficient evidence of delivery to Wells Fargo and actual notice
since June 23, 2026.
B. Waiver of Objections
Wells Fargo was required to serve any objection by July 7, 2026, fourteen days after
service and before the July 15 compliance date. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B). It served no
objection then or since, and it has not moved to quash or modify the subpoena. Wells Fargo has
therefore waived its ordinary, nonprivileged objections on this record. See Moon, 232 F.R.D. at
636 (“A nonparty’s failure to timely make objections to a Rule 45 subpoena duces tecum generally
requires the court to find that any objections have been waived.”) (citing In re DG Acquisition
Corp., 151 F.3d 75, 81 (2d Cir. 1998); Creative Gifts, Inc. v. UFO, 183 F.R.D. 568, 570 (D.N.M.
1998)). Nor does the record present unusual circumstances that would justify excusing that
waiver. Wells Fargo has had actual notice of the subpoena for months, has acknowledged it
internally, and has not communicated any position to Glover, much less an objection. As
discussed below, the Court limits the broadest request to keep the ordered production within the
bounds of fair discovery. See id.
Because Glover seeks only non-privileged documents, ECF No. 8 at 7, the Court need not
decide whether Wells Fargo’s failure to object also waived any claim of privilege. Wells Fargo
may withhold a responsive document based on privilege or work-product protection only by
complying with Rule 45(e)(2)(A).
C. Relevance, Proportionality, and Scope
Although Wells Fargo’s objections are waived, the Court must still limit discovery on its
own where Rule 26(b)(2)(C) requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
The subpoena seeks relevant information. The requested documents concern Wells
Case 3:26-mc-80264-TSH Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 Page 6 of 10

7
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Fargo’s 2023 preferred ship mortgage on the F/V Sea Ern and communications or records
concerning the vessel’s value in connection with that mortgage. In fixing a salvage award,
admiralty courts consider, among other things, “the value of the property saved.” Saint Paul
Marine Transp. Corp. v. Cerro Sales Corp., 505 F.2d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 1974) (citing The
Blackwall, 77 U.S. 1, 14 (1869)). Glover contends that vessel value is a central issue in the
underlying action and that Sea Ern LLC represented the vessel’s value to Wells Fargo when it
obtained the 2023 mortgage. Mot. at 3, 5. Records reflecting the value that Wells Fargo or Sea
Ern attributed to the F/V Sea Ern, such as appraisals, credit analyses, or related communications,
bear on that issue, although a valuation made in connection with the 2023 mortgage does not itself
establish the vessel’s value at the time of salvage.
The Court has also considered whether the requested documents can be obtained from Sea
Ern LLC, a party to the underlying action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i); Moon, 232 F.R.D. at
638 (finding undue burden where the requesting party could “more easily and inexpensively
obtain the documents from defendant”) (citing Dart Industries, 649 F.2d at 649). Some items,
such as the loan agreement and the vessel mortgage, may well be available from Sea Ern. Indeed,
the promissory note attached to the subpoena bears Sea Ern production numbers. Jacobsen Decl.,
Ex. A at 7-13. The core of the subpoena, however, seeks Wells Fargo’s own records of how the
vessel was valued in connection with the loan, and its communications about the loan. Sea Ern
would not necessarily possess Wells Fargo’s internal valuation analyses or communications in
substantially equivalent form. The loan agreement and mortgage may provide context for the
valuation and underwriting records sought. Wells Fargo has not identified any specific burden of
producing those documents from the relevant loan file. Thus, Rule 26(b)(2)(C) does not require
the Court to exclude those items.
Two requests warrant clarification so that Wells Fargo’s obligations are specific and
definite. Request No. 2 contains no temporal limit. See Jacobsen Decl., Ex. A at 6 (“Produce all
documents, communications, etc., that concern or are related to the value by the bank or Sea Em
LLC regarding the F N Sea Em.”). The Court construes it to reach documents and
communications concerning the value of the F/V Sea Ern that Wells Fargo created or received in
Case 3:26-mc-80264-TSH Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 Page 7 of 10

8
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
connection with its lending relationship with Sea Ern LLC secured by the vessel, including the
2023 mortgage loan and its administration. Request No. 3(e) seeks “[a]ny and all communications
with Wells Fargo, in any format, regarding the mortgage.” Id. The Court construes that request to
reach communications between Wells Fargo and another person, including Sea Ern LLC, its
members or managers, any guarantor, and any appraiser or surveyor, concerning the vessel’s
valuation, the underwriting or origination of the 2023 mortgage, credit enhancement or guarantees
supporting it, or any subsequent appraisal or reassessment of the vessel as collateral. Routine
servicing communications unrelated to those subjects are excluded. Wells Fargo’s internal
communications concerning the value of the vessel fall within Requests No. 1 and 2. The Court
reads the phrase “documents, communications, etc.” in Requests No. 1 and 2 to mean documents
and electronically stored information, including communications. So construed, the subpoena is
relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g) advisory committee’s
note to 2013 amendment (an order compelling compliance “might not require all the compliance
sought by the subpoena”).
D. Deadline, Place, and Conditions of Production
Glover asks the Court to order production by September 21, 2026. Mot. at 7. That date
precedes Wells Fargo’s September 24, 2026 deadline to oppose the motion. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a).
The Court therefore sets a new deadline below.1
Glover also asks that production be made to his counsel by overnight delivery. Mot. at 7.
Glover’s counsel is in Seattle. Id. at 8. A subpoena may command production only at a place
within 100 miles of where the recipient resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in
person, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A), and the place of compliance designated in this subpoena is
San Francisco. Jacobsen Decl., Ex. A at 3. Parties often arrange for production by delivery or
electronic transmission instead, and the 2013 amendments to Rule 45 do not limit their ability to
do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) advisory committee’s note to 2013 amendment. Accordingly, Wells
Fargo may comply either at the designated place of compliance or, at its election, by overnight
1 The subpoena also commanded Wells Fargo to appear for a deposition. Jacobsen Decl., Ex. A at
3. Glover does not ask the Court to compel testimony, and this Order does not require it.
Case 3:26-mc-80264-TSH Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 Page 8 of 10

9
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
delivery or secure electronic transmission to Glover’s counsel.
Glover’s counsel offered to pay any additional copying costs. Jacobsen Decl., Ex. A at 1.
Wells Fargo has not asserted that compliance will impose any expense, and nothing in the record
suggests that producing the file for a single commercial loan and related communications will
impose significant expense. The Court therefore does not shift costs at this time, but Glover shall
pay Wells Fargo’s reasonable copying costs upon request. This is without prejudice to Wells
Fargo seeking relief upon a showing of significant expense. See Legal Voice, 738 F.3d at 1184.
Finally, the Court notes the requested records may contain non-public financial
information of Sea Ern LLC and any guarantor.2 If a protective order has been entered in the
underlying action, Wells Fargo may designate produced material under that order. Absent such an
order, Glover shall use documents produced under this Order solely for purposes of the underlying
action.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Glover’s motion to compel and
ORDERS as follows:
1. Within two court days of the date of this Order, Glover shall serve a copy of this
Order on Wells Fargo by personal delivery to its registered agent for service of process in
California and by mail to each Wells Fargo address listed in the certificate of service to
ECF No. 8. Glover shall also transmit a copy to the Wells Fargo legal department
personnel with whom his counsel has communicated concerning the subpoena. Glover
shall file proof of service within three court days after service.
2. Within 21 days of this Order, Wells Fargo shall produce all non-privileged
documents and electronically stored information in its possession, custody, or control that
are responsive to Requests No. 1, 2, and 3(a) through 3(e) of Exhibit A to the subpoena
2 To the extent the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act applies to the requested records, it permits a financial
institution to disclose nonpublic personal information to respond to judicial process, including a
properly authorized subpoena. 15 U.S.C. § 6802(e)(8)). Thus, “courts have generally found that
the GLBA does not provide a legal basis for quashing a properly executed subpoena.” Terteryan
v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 2017 WL 3576844, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2017) (collecting
cases).
Case 3:26-mc-80264-TSH Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 Page 9 of 10

10
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
served on June 23, 2026 (ECF No. 1-6 at 6), as construed above.
3. Wells Fargo shall produce the documents at the offices of McGuinn, Hillsman &
Palefsky, 220 Jackson Street, Suite 350, San Francisco, California 94111, or, at its
election, by overnight delivery to Stacey & Jacobsen, PLLC, 4039 21st Avenue West,
Suite 401, Seattle, Washington 98199, or by secure electronic transmission to Glover’s
counsel. Wells Fargo shall produce documents as they are kept in the ordinary course of
business or organized and labeled to correspond to the categories in the subpoena and shall
produce electronically stored information in a form in which it is ordinarily maintained or
in a reasonably usable form. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(1)(A)-(B).
4. If Wells Fargo withholds any responsive document based on privilege or work-
product protection, it shall, by the same deadline, expressly make the claim and serve a log
that complies with Rule 45(e)(2)(A).
5. If a reasonable search locates no responsive documents for a particular request,
Wells Fargo shall notify Glover’s counsel in writing by the production deadline.
6. Glover shall pay Wells Fargo’s reasonable copying costs upon request. If a
protective order has been entered in the underlying action, Wells Fargo may designate
produced material under that order. Absent such an order, Glover shall use documents
produced under this Order solely for purposes of the underlying action.
7. Wells Fargo is advised that failure to comply with this Order without adequate
excuse may result in contempt proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:26-mc-80264-TSH Document 13 Filed 10/15/26 Page 10 of 10