Short v. Mando American Corporation
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant's Motions to Quash (Doc. 104 and 105 ) are DENIED as further set out in the opinion and order. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 8/16/2011. (dmn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CLAUDE R. SHORT,
MANDO AMERICA CORPORATION,
Case No. 3:10-cv-350-MEF
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motions to Quash Subpoenas of
Jerry Rolison and Nicole Rolison. (Doc. # 104 and 105). A party may move to quash a
subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3) in the following circumstances:
(1) the subpoena fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(2) the subpoena requires a non-party to travel more than 100 miles;
(3) the subpoena requires disclosure of privileged information including trade
secrets, unretained expert opinions; and
(4) the subpoena subjects a person to an undue burden.
See F.R.C.P. 45(c)(3). The Defendant failed to enumerate any of these grounds in its
motion, instead arguing that the testimony Jerry and Nicole Rolison would give would be
irrelevant. A motion to quash is not the proper vehicle for this type of argument.
Additionally, the Defendant does not have standing to quash a subpoena. See
Brown v. Braddick, 595 F.2d 961, 967 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that only the person to
whom the subpoena is directed has standing to file a motion to quash).1 The Defendant
has not alleged a personal right or privilege with respect to the documents.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motions to Quash
(Doc. # 104 and 105) are DENIED.
Done this the 16 th day of August, 2011.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.3d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1982), the
Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions the Fifth Circuit handed
down after September 30, 1981.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?