Thibodeaux v. The Dow Chemical Company et al
ORDER: Dow shall serve a copy of the instant 18 Motion for Contempt and to Compel and this Order on the non-party Daronda M. Parker-Lathan, LCSW within 5 days of the date of this Order at the addresses listed. Within 7 days of the date of this order, Dow shall file into the record a certificate of service and methods of service used to on the non-party Daronda M. Parker-Lathan, LCSW. Within 7 Days of the date she is served, non-party Daronda M. Parker-Lathan, LCSW shall file a response to 18 MOTION into the record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 7/31/2017. (LLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,
Before the Court is defendant The Dow Chemical Company’s (“Dow”) Motion for
Contempt and to Compel against Daronda M. Parker-Lathan, LCSW (R. Doc. 18) filed on June
30, 2017. Dow seeks an order requiring Ms. Parker-Lathan to immediately produce the
documents requested in a subpoena served on April 19, 2017, without objection, and awarding its
reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in addressing Ms. Parker-Lathan’s failure
to comply with the subpoena. (R. Doc. 18-1 at 9).
Ms. Parker-Lathan has not filed any response to Dow’s motion as of the date of this Order.
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).
In the Certificate of Service accompanying the instant motion, Dow’s counsel certifies that
the motion was sent to Ms. Parker-Lathan “by email, facsimile, hand delivery and/or First Class,
U.S. mail properly addressed and postage prepaid, on June 30, 2017.” (R. Doc. 18-1 at 10).
It is unclear from the foregoing what method or methods of service Dow’s counsel actually
used to serve Ms. Parker-Lathan a copy of the instant motion. The use of the phrase “and/or” is
boilerplate at best and provides no indication as to how Ms. Parker-Lathan was provided notice as
required by Rule 45. Considering that Ms. Parker-Lathan has not responded to the instant motion
within the time allowed by Local Rule 7(f), the Court will require Dow to serve the instant motion
on Ms. Parker-Lathan again, and clearly indicate the method or methods of service on Ms. ParkerLathan on an updated certificate of service.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Dow shall serve a copy of the instant Motion (R. Doc. 18) and this
Order on the non-party Daronda M. Parker-Lathan, LCSW within 5 days of the date of this Order
at the following addresses: (1) 4919 Jamestown Avenue, Suite #101-D, Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
70808; (2) 13888 Plank Road, Suite B, Baker, Louisiana, 70714; and any other address or location
where Ms. Parker-Lathan may be found.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dow shall file into the record a certificate of service
indicating that it has served a copy of the instant Motion and this Order on the non-party Daronda
M. Parker-Lathan, LCSW, including identification of the specific methods of service used, within
7 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the non-party Daronda M. Parker-Lathan, LCSW shall
file any response to Dow’s Motion (R. Doc. 18) within 7 calendar days of the date she is served
with a copy of the instant Motion and this Order.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 31, 2017.
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?