MINOTT v. MERRILL

Filing 30

ORDER granting 28 Motion to Quash. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 09/23/2016. (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
BASIL R. MINOTT,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

MICHAEL R. MERRILL,

*

Defendant.

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-3 (CDL)

*

O R D E R
On September 21, 2016, the Court received a letter from pro
se Plaintiff Basil Minott asking the clerk to execute a subpoena
on T-Mobile USA.

Letter from Basil R. Minott to the Clerk

(Sept. 9, 2016), ECF No. 27.

The subpoena seeks production of

all of Defendant Michael Merrill’s cell phone records for the
year 2013.
No. 28).
“The

Merrill filed a motion to quash the subpoena (ECF

As discussed below, the motion is granted.
majority

of

jurisdictions,

and

courts

within

this

Circuit, consider subpoenas issued under Rule 45 to constitute
discovery
established

and,
by

thus,
the

are

subject

Court.”

Circle

to

discovery
Grp.,

deadlines

L.L.C.

v.

Se.

Carpenters Reg’l Council, 836 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1351 (N.D. Ga.
2011) (collecting cases).

The Court issued a scheduling order

in this case setting forth the discovery deadlines.

That order

“may

be

modified

consent.”

only

for

good

cause

and

with

the

judge’s

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

Discovery in this case was originally scheduled to close on
April

28,

2016,

but

the

Court

extended

the

deadline

after

Minott’s counsel withdrew to allow Minott “an opportunity to get
his case back on track.” Text Order Den. Mot. to Dismiss (Mar.
8, 2016), ECF No. 11.
2016.

The new discovery deadline was June 28,

The Court emphasized that Minott’s “pro se status does

not excuse him from complying with the Court’s rules and the
applicable law.”

Id.

The Court noted that it would “grant no

further extensions regardless of whether [Minott] is able to
obtain counsel.”

Id.

Minott did not explain why he could not obtain the records
he now seeks during discovery.

Minott also did not point to

evidence that he exercised any diligence to obtain the records
during discovery.

For these reasons, the Court concludes that

Minott has not demonstrated good cause for the Court to amend
the scheduling order to permit the subpoena.

Merrill’s motion

to quash (ECF No. 28) is therefore granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of September, 2016.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2