Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 52

ORDER. Defendants Motion to Quash Subpoenas Served on Defendant 47 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Motion for Order 50 is DENIED. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/30/2012.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00968-REB-KLM
KATHLEEN CHYTKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas
Served on Defendant [Docket No. 47; Filed January 19, 2012] (the “Motion to Quash”) and
on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order [Docket No. 50; Filed January 26, 2012] (the “Motion for
Order”).
On December 14, 2011 and December 21, 2011, Plaintiff, who proceeds in this
matter pro se, served two subpoenas on Defendant to obtain production of documents she
believes are within Defendant’s control. See Ex. A to Motion to Quash [#47-1]. To facilitate
the matter’s resolution, Defendant wrote to Plaintiff on December 27, 2011, informing her
that subpoenas were an improper means of obtaining documents from a another party and
informing her that she should make her requests for production pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
34. See. Ex. B to Motion to Quash [#47-2]. Plaintiff chose to serve five more subpoenas
on Defendant on January 9, 2012. Ex. C to Motion to Quash [#47-3].

1

Defendant filed the present Motion to Quash [#47] on January 19, 2012. It seeks
to quash the seven subpoenas because they are an improper means of obtaining discovery
from a party opponent. See Motion to Quash [#47] at 2. The Court agrees. “The issuance
of a Rule 45 subpoena for documents from the plaintiff [to the defendant] is improper in any
event.” Murray v. Crawford, No. 08-cv-0245-KMT-KLM, 2009 WL 1600682, at *1 (D. Colo.
June 4, 2009) (citing Hasbro, Inc. v. Serafino, 168 F.R.D. 99, 100 (D. Mass. 1996) (holding
that Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoenas are applicable only to non-parties and that documents
sought from the opposing party must be requested pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34)).
Plaintiff must make future discovery requests to Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Quash is granted.
With respect to Plaintiff’s Motion for Order [#50], Plaintiff has failed to comply with
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. Plaintiff has been warned multiple times already that she must do
so before filing motions with the Court. See [#36; #42, #45]. Any future motion that does
not comply with this rule will be summarily stricken from the record. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motion to Quash [#47] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Order [#50] is DENIED.
Dated: January 30, 2012

2