RODRIGUEZ v. PARSONS INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. et al
ORDER - For reasons explained in this Order and because the Subpoenas are being withdrawn, both 105 Motion to Quash and 110 Motion to Quash are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 6/3/2010. (NRN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION LAURA RODRIQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. PARSONS INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., and SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
This matter came before the Honorable William G. Hussmann, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, on Defendant Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, Inc.'s Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order filed May 17, 2010 (Docket Nos. 105-07), and Defendant Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc.'s Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order filed May 19, 2010 (Docket Nos. 110-12). A telephonic hearing was held on May 21, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. (EDT). Plaintiff was represented by counsel, Robert F. Hunt. Defendant Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group was represented by counsel, Steven F. Pockrass. The Magistrate Judge, being duly advised, enters the following orders: 1. Mr. Hunt has agreed to voluntarily withdraw the Subpoenas for the depositions of Mr. Pockrass and Ms. Michelsen. He shall next file his response
to the Motion for Sanctions. The Magistrate Judge has concluded that, based upon defendant Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc.'s Verified Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 95), Mr. Hunt must respond first without conducting discovery of the opposing party's files or billing practices. This is because the motion, as it has currently been filed, does not state with any specificity a particular demand for attorney's fees and costs in a manner in which Mr. Hunt can reasonably be expected to respond. The Magistrate Judge anticipates issuing a ruling as to whether sanctions are warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 or under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. If it is recommended that such sanctions issue, a second set of briefs will address the appropriate amount of sanctions. Should the court determine that sanctions are necessary and that the appropriate amount of sanctions must be established, the court will then consider whether Mr. Hunt may be entitled to resubmit subpoenas. If such subpoenas must be resubmitted, Mr. Hunt is cautioned that they not seek items that are clearly attorney-client privilege or work product. The court represented to Mr. Hunt that should Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure's counsel seek specific amounts of sanctions in its reply brief, then Mr. Hunt may be entitled to further discovery and a surreply brief. 2. Mr. Pockrass raised the issue of whether sanctions should be entitled to be asserted for the time the defendants have incurred in filing the motions to quash. The Magistrate Judge advised Mr. Pockrass that, because of ongoing litigation between Ms. Rodriguez and Parsons Infrastructure & Technology
Group in this case, he is entitled to choose to file such a request within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order, or in the alternative, he may wait to file such a request until ten (10) days after final judgment has been entered in this case in the district court. Any request which Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure may have for fees incurred in filing its Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order may be incorporated into any final request for fees under their Verified Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 95), or they may be submitted as a separate motion within ten (10) days after any ruling with respect to the Verified Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 95), if the court has concluded that no sanctions are warranted under Rule 11 or § 1927. Therefore, both Motions to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order are DENIED at this time, because the Subpoenas are being withdrawn. SO ORDERED. Entered: June 3, 2010
__________________________ William G. Hussmann, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of Indiana
Electronic copies to: Robert F. Hunt HUNT HASSLER & LORENZ LLP firstname.lastname@example.org Kristin B. Keltner OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART email@example.com
Jan S. Michelsen OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART firstname.lastname@example.org Steven F. Pockrass OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART email@example.com Candace S. Walker OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART firstname.lastname@example.org
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?