Wills v. Mountain Home, Arkansas, City of et al

Filing 95

ORDER GRANTING 90 Motion to Quash as Construed filed by Janet Faye Lacefield. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on July 25, 2013. (jas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
MARTIN WILLS
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 3:12-cv-03090

CITY OF MOUNTAIN HOME, ARKANSAS; CARRY
MANUEL; ROBERT HARDEN; MICHAEL KELLY;
and JANET FAYE LACEFIELD

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Currently before the Court are objections (Doc. 90) filed by Defendant Janet Faye Lacefield
to a subpoena to produce documents served on her by Plaintiff Martin Wills. Also before the Court
is Mr. Wills's response. (Doc. 91).
The Court will construe Ms. Lacefield's objections as a motion to quash the subpoena. As
construed, that motion is GRANTED. Since Ms. Lacefield is a party, Mr. Wills should have
requested the production of documents from Ms. Lacefield through the procedure set forth in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Mr. Wills claims that he did seek production through Rule 34, but
argues that he was forced to get a subpoena because of Ms. Lacefield's refusal to appropriately
respond to his request. Mr. Wills attached a letter (Doc. 91-5) documenting his previous attempt to
get production of documents from Ms. Lacefield. It appears, however, that although Mr. Wills may
have intended his previous Rule 34 request to encompass the same documents requested in the
subpoena, the Rule 34 request is not the same as the request set forth in the attachment to his
subpoena (Doc. 91-3).
It also appears to the Court that Mr. Wills has been diligent in trying to get documents from
Ms. Lacefield. He simply did not follow the right procedures or perhaps make himself clear in his
-1-

original Rule 34 request. Giving Mr. Wills the benefit of the doubt, the Court ORDERS that Ms.
Lacefield treat Exhibit A to Mr. Wills's subpoena (Doc. 91-3) as a supplemental request for
production of documents. Ms. Lacefield is therefore directed to respond to Mr. Wills's requests as
she would a Rule 34 request. The response does not need to be filed on the record, but should be
sent to Mr. Wills within 14 days of the date of this Order. If Mr. Wills is unsatisfied with Ms.
Lacefield's responses, he may file an appropriate motion to compel within 7 days of receiving Ms.
Lacefield's responses, after first attempting in good faith to resolve any disputes with and through
Ms. Lacefield's attorney.
This Order will not affect the discovery deadline imposed by the amended final scheduling
order (Doc. 89) except to the extent that discovery involving Mr. Wills's supplemental requests may
proceed beyond the deadline and in accordance with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of July, 2013.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-