Ross v. Jenkins et al

Filing 181

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 170 Non-Party Marvin L. McIntosh's Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Subpoena. See order for deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 3/13/2019. Mailed to pro se non-party Marvin L. McIntosh by regular mail and sent by email to [e-mail]. (ts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

KENDRA ROSS,
Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor,
v.
ROYALL JENKINS, et al.,
Defendants-Judgment Debtors.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-cv-02547-DDC-TJJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Non-Party Marvin L. McIntosh’s Motion for Extension
of Time to Comply with Subpoena (ECF No. 170), in which he seeks a 90-day extension of time
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) to comply with a document subpoena served by PlaintiffJudgment Creditor. In her response, Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor opposes the motion but offers
certain accommodations. For reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion insofar as
it seeks an extension of time, but will deny the motion insofar as it seeks 90 days for the
extension.
On February 1, 2019, Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor served a document subpoena on nonparty Marvin L. McIntosh, with a production date of February 15, 2019.1 On February 14, 2019,
McIntosh filed this motion seeking a 90-day extension of time to produce documents responsive
to the subpoena. Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor timely responded. Because McIntosh did not file a
reply by the March 11, 2019 deadline, this motion is now ripe.

1

See ECF No. 173-1 at 3.

McIntosh asserts that the subpoena seeks documents of “extreme volume” dating back to
January 1, 2008, and that gathering them is a very burdensome task. He states he will comply
with the subpoena, but that it was impossible to do so by February 15, 2019. Instead, McIntosh
confirms he will be able to satisfy the subpoena’s requests by May 16, 2019.
Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor points out that McIntosh failed to confer with her in advance
of seeking this extension as required by this Court’s local rule, D. Kan. R. 37.2. In addition,
Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor argues that McIntosh fails to meet the good cause standard imposed
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) and D. Kan. R. 6.1(a). Although she urges the Court to deny the
motion on these grounds, Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor offers to extend McIntosh’s response
deadline by two weeks, arrange for a copy service to assist him in copying the documents, and
accept a rolling production of documents.
Although McIntosh has offered only generalized statements about the number of
documents the subpoena requires and the time period they span, the Court appreciates that
gathering the documents requires some effort. On the other hand, in November 2018 PlaintiffJudgment Creditor served a nearly identical document subpoena on McIntosh, and he made no
apparent effort to comply. Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor is entitled to the documents she seeks
pursuant to a valid Rule 45 subpoena, and the Court will require McIntosh to comply.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Non-Party Marvin L. McIntosh’s Motion for Extension of Time to
Comply with Subpoena (ECF No. 170) is granted in part and denied in part as follows. No later
than March 19, 2019, Marvin L. McIntosh shall contact Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor’s counsel,
Elizabeth A. Hutson, by telephone or email to advise her of his progress in gathering responsive
2

documents and discuss with her details of any copying service assistance counsel is willing to
arrange.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that thereafter, Marvin L. McIntosh shall immediately
produce responsive documents in his custody or control, withholding nothing because he failed
to timely object to any portion of the subpoena.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than April 2, 2019, Marvin L. McIntosh
shall produce to Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor all documents responsive to the document
subpoena.
Dated this 13th day of March, 2019, at Kansas City, Kansas.

Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge

3