Nassar et al v. Jackson et al

Filing 76

ORDER denying 73 Defendants' Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 11/5/2012. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
RAY NASSAR and GENA SMITH,
Plaintiffs
V.
EARNESTINE JACKSON, individually
and in her official capacity as a Hughes
School Board Member, ET AL.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

NO: 3:11CV00133 SWW

Defendants
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to quash (docket entry #73) and Plaintiff’s
response opposition (docket entry #74). After careful consideration, and for reasons that follow,
the motion to quash is denied.
Defendants moves to quash a subpoena issued Plaintiff to non-party Sherry Thomas,
commanding her to produce documents. In support of their motion, Defendants object that
subpoena “does not set out the text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c) and (d) as required .
. . [and] does not include a statement of the rights and duties of witnesses . . . . ” Docket entry
#73, at 2. Defendants also object that Plaintiff issued the subpoena after expiration of the
discovery deadline.
“Ordinarily a party has no standing to seek to quash a subpoena issued to someone who is
not a party to the action, unless the objecting party claims some personal right or privilege with
regard to the documents sought.” 9A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR MILLER, FEDERAL
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURES § 2459 (3d. ed. 2008); see also Griffith v. United States, 2007 WL
1222586, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. April 25, 2007). Here, Defendants fail to allege a personal right or
privilege with respect to the documents sought, and the Court finds that Defendants have no

standing to bring the motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to quash (docket entry #73)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 5th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012.

/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2