Creative Compounds, LLC v. Lott & Friedland, P.A.

Filing 14

ORDER Granting Motion of Creative Compounds, LLC and Non-Party Gary Haynes to Quash Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition In a Civil Action Served on Gary Haynes by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/09/13. (jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03148-WYD-BNB
CREATIVE COMPOUNDS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOTT & FRIEDLAND, P. A.,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the Motion of Creative Compounds, LLC and Non-Party Gary
Haynes to Quash Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition In a Civil Action Served on Gary
Haynes [Doc. # 2, filed 11/19/2013] (the “Motion to Quash”). I held a hearing on the Motion to
Quash this morning and made rulings on the record, which are incorporated here.
Plaintiff’s counsel, Thomas J. DeGroot, engaged in snake-in-the-weeds conduct when he
failed to disclose with reasonable promptness that he had agreed to represent Mr. Haynes in
connection with an initial (but defective) subpoena served within the discovery period on Mr.
Haynes and when he failed to disclose with reasonable promptness that Mr. Haynes (apparently
on Mr. DeGroot’s advice) would “ignore” that subpoena. Mr. DeGroot and plaintiff’s local
counsel, Kathryn A. Reilly, failed in their duty of candor toward the tribunal when they did not
disclose in the Motion to Quash the existence of the initial subpoena and when they argued,
disingenuously, that Mr. Haynes had not been provided with witness and mileage fees. I
disapprove of this conduct.

Nonetheless, the subpoena at issue here violates the discovery cut-off established by the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where the action is pending.
For that reason, and that reason alone, the Motion to Quash must be granted. I find that Mr.
Haynes’ anticipated deposition testimony is relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in the
case, and I reject the argument that sitting for a deposition is unduly burdensome to Mr. Haynes.
Counsel for the witness has acknowledged in open court that they will accept service of
process of a renewed subpoena on behalf of their client if the Florida court extends the discovery
cut-off, and I expect them to be good to their word. If Mr. Haynes has destroyed or returned the
witness and mileage fees previously served, the defendant must tender those fees to Mr. Haynes’
counsel when it makes service of a new subpoena after the Florida court rules; otherwise, the
fees previously tendered suffice.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Quash [Doc. # 2] is GRANTED.
Dated December 9, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2