Brashears et al v. Mohave Transportation Insurance Company et al

Filing 27

RULING denying 21 Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena. Austin Bridge & Road, L.L.C. is awarded attorneys fees of $300, to be paid by the defendants within 14 days.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 5/21/2012. (LSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

OCTAVIA BRASHEARS WIFE OF/
AND KERRY BRASHEARS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER 11-401-JJB-SCR

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY,
L.L.C., ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA
Before the court is the Motion Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(e) to
Compel

Compliance

With

Subpoena

filed

by

defendants

Swift

Transportation Company of Arizona, L.L.C., Mohave Transportation
Insurance Company, Alvin Fleming and Target Corporation.
document number 21.

Record

Third party Austin Bridge & Road, L.P. filed

an opposition.1
Defendants’ motion seeks to compel Austin Bridge & Road, L.P.
(“AB&R”), located in Irving, Texas, to produce certain photographs
and video of work in progress during May 2010 in the area on I-10
where the accident at issue in the case occurred. The records-only
subpoena was issued March 23, 2012, out of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and commanded
production of various documents at a court reporter’s office in
Dallas, Texas, on April 26, 2012.2

1

Record document number 26.

2

Record document number 21-2, Exhibit B.

The subpoena also
(continued...)

Defendants complained that AB&R’s April 30, 2012 subpoena
response did not include photographs or videos of the work on I-10.
In its opposition memorandum, which is supported by the affidavit
of AB&R Project Manager Charles “Chuck” Daniel Smith, III, AB&R
explained that the initial document search failed to uncover any
photographs or videos of the area which it could determine were
taken

in

May

2010,

as

the

subpoena

required.

Subsequent

communications between counsel confirmed that AB&R’s subpoena
response was accurate.

Nonetheless, AB&R did another search for

any photographs and videos of the I-10 project from its beginning
in

2009

to

January

3,

2012,

regardless

of

the

location.

Photographs and videos were located and these were produced to the
defendants on seven compact dics on May 17, 2012.

However,

according to Smith, none of these can clearly be identified as
having been taken in May 2010.
The available information easily supports finding that AB&R’s
April 30 production complied with the defendants’ subpoena, and
AB&R had no obligation to conduct another search or produce
anything else.

Defendants’ motion to compel was not substantially

justified and there are no circumstances which make an award of
expenses to AB&R unjust. See Rules 37(a)(5)(B) and 45(c)(1).

2

A

(...continued)
stated that it may be satisfied by mailing certified copies of the
documents to counsel for the defendants in New Orleans, Louisiana,
prior to the deposition date.
2

review of the motion papers supports awarding AB&R its reasonable
attorney’s fees incurred to oppose this motion in the amount of
$300.
Accordingly, the defendants’ Motion Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(e)
to Compel Compliance With Subpoena is denied.

Austin Bridge &

Road, L.L.C. is awarded attorney’s fees of $300, to be paid by the
defendants within 14 days.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, May 21, 2012.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3