Whitley v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. of Delaware et al

Filing 50

ORDER: as to 38 MOTION to Compel Production of Subpoenaed Documents filed by Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. of Delaware, PNK (Baton Rouge) Partnership. PNK shall serve a copy of the 38 Motion to Compel and this Order on the non-p arty Financial Indemnity Company within 5 days of the date of this Order. PNK shall file into the record a certificate of service indicating that PNK has served a copy of the instant Motion and this Order on the non-party Financial Indemnity Compan y within 7 days of the date of this Order. The non-party Financial Indemnity Company shall file any response to PNKs Motion to Compel within 14 days of the date it is served with the Motion to Compel and this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 8/1/2016. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CAROLYN WHITLEY

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-595-BAJ-RLB

PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
OF DELAWARE, ET AL.

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Compel Production of Subpoenaed Documents (R. Doc.
38) filed by Defendants PNK (Baton Rouge) Partnership d/b/a L’Auberge Casino & Hotel and
Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. of Delaware (collectively, “PNK”) on July 21, 2016. The Motion
seeks an order compelling the production of documents from the non-party Financial Indemnity
Company pursuant to a Rule 45 subpoena served on July 13, 2016.
Rule 45 provides that “[a]t any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving
party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling
production or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i) (emphasis added).
A court may not order compliance with a subpoena under Rule 45 unless the subpoenaed
party and the parties to the action have first been provided notice of the motion to compel. See,
e.g., Shaw Grp., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 12-257, 2014 WL 68604, at *1 (M.D. La. Jan. 8,
2014), reconsideration denied, 2014 WL 204244 (M.D. La. Jan. 17, 2014). Here, the record
does not indicate that the non-party Financial Indemnity Company has been served with a copy
of PNK’s Motion to Compel.1
Based on the foregoing,

PNK’s Motion incorrectly suggests that the Court has the responsibility of serving the Motion on the non-party or
otherwise satisfying a party’s obligations under Rule 45.
1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PNK shall serve a copy of the Motion to Compel (R.
Doc. 38) and this Order on the non-party Financial Indemnity Company within 5 days of the
date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PNK shall file into the record a certificate of service
indicating that PNK has served a copy of the instant Motion and this Order on the non-party
Financial Indemnity Company within 7 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the non-party Financial Indemnity Company shall
file any response to PNK’s Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 38) within 14 days of the date it is
served with the Motion to Compel and this Order.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 1, 2016.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE