Developers Surety and Indemnity Company v. Belcher et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant Edward A. Brown's 33 Motion to Quash Subpoena; setting deadline for parties to update the Court with the outcome of conferral efforts regarding Defendant's desired modification to the current subpoena deadline and the document requests. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 4/6/2017. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
Fax [phone]

April 6, 2017
LETTER TO COUNSEL
RE:

Developers Surety and Indemnity Company v. Lester J. Belcher, Jr., et al.;
Civil Case No. SAG-16-1124

Dear Counsel:
This Court has reviewed Defendant Edward A. Brown’s (“Defendant’s”) Motion to
Quash Subpoena, Plaintiff Developers Surety and Indemnity Company’s (“Developers’”)
Opposition, and Defendant’s Reply. [ECF Nos. 33, 34, 35]. No hearing is necessary. See Loc.
R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART.
On March 7, 2017, I granted Developers’ Motion for Summary Judgment and an
accompanying Order effectuating the same.1 [ECF No. 31, 32]. Where judgment is entered by a
separate document, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(c)(2) defines “time of entry” as “when
the judgment is entered in the civil docket under Rule 79(a) and … (A) it is set out in a separate
document[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2) (emphasis added). Here, the Memorandum Opinion
entered the civil docket on March 7, 2016, but the Order did not enter the civil docket until
March 8, 2017. Consequently, pursuant to Rule 58, judgment in this matter entered on March 8,
2017. Following the entry of judgment, Developers issued a subpoena on March 21, 2017 for
the purpose of “obtain[ing] information concerning sources available for Developers to enforce
and collect on its judgment.” Developers’ Opp., [ECF No. 34 at 2 n.1]. Defendant correctly
objects that Developers’ subpoena – issued on March 22, 2017 – violates the 14-day automatic
stay provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a). See Def.’s Mot.,
[ECF No. 33, 1 & 33-1]. On the other hand, Defendant failed to confer with opposing counsel
prior to filing the instant Motion, as mandated by both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rules – Defendant’s “particular and specific instructions” to Defendant’s counsel
notwithstanding. Def.’s Reply, [ECF No. 35, 2]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1); Loc. R. 104 (D.
Md. 2016). Nor do communications between the parties after the Motion was filed cure this
deficiency. See Def.’s Reply, [ECF No. 35, 2]. In short, both sides failed to comport with the
ground rules of post-judgment proceedings.
The Court will not address Defendant’s substantive objections to the deadline, scope, and
nature of Developers’ document requests until the parties themselves attempt to resolve this
1

Defendant Lester J. Belcher, Jr.’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 36) challenging my
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting judgment in favor of Developers (ECF Nos. 31, 32) will be the subject of
a future opinion and order.

dispute. Accordingly, I order the parties to confer regarding Defendant’s desired modification to
the current subpoena deadline and the document requests, and update the Court with the outcome
of these conferral efforts in writing, no later than Monday, April 10, 2017.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it is an Order of the Court and will be docketed
as such.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge