Fielder v. Connell et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying 33 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders on 3/4/2015. (rrz)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION

LORI FIELDER, INDIVIDUALLY,
As REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE ESTATE OF JAMES BERNARD FIELDER,
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF JAMES BERNARD FIELDER,
DECEASED

V.

PLAINTIFFS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV160-SA-DAS

L.C. CONNER a/k/a K.C. CONNELL,
J&B SERVICES, INC., d/b/a J&B TRUCKING,
TOYOTA BOSHOKU MISSISSIPPI, LLC, AND
JOHN DOES 1-10

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH
Plaintiff has moved to quash (#34) defendant’s subpoena duces tecum, which was served
upon Container Solutions, Inc. (“CSI”), a non-party to this litigation. In support of her motion to
quash, plaintiff argues that the subpoena requests information that is overly broad and irrelevant
to the issues raised by the underlying civil action. In its response (#36), defendant argues that
plaintiff lacks standing to oppose the subpoena duces tecum because she failed to allege a
personal right or privilege with respect to the materials subpoenaed. Furthermore, defendant
argues that plaintiff has failed to articulate any grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
45(d) entitling her to quash the subpoena and submits that the information sought is both
discoverable and relevant.
Defendant’s subpoena requires a non-party to produce and deliver certain documents to
its attorneys’ offices in Jackson, Mississippi. However, a subpoena commands “production of

documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a place within 100 miles of
where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(c)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Defendant’s subpoena commands a non-party located in Athens,
Alabama to produce documents at a place more than three-hundred miles away from where it is
located. “Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(ii) directs this court to quash any subpoena that purports to compel
compliance beyond the geographical limits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, advisory committee notes, 2013
Amendment, Subdivision (c) (West 2013).
However, plaintiff has likewise failed to comply with Rule 45 by filing her motion to
quash in this district court. Under the new version of Rule 45, a motion to quash or modify a
subpoena must be brought in the court for the district in which compliance is required. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). Athens, Alabama is located in Limestone County, so the proper forum
for plaintiff’s motion to quash would be the Northeastern Division of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena duces
tecum is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this, the 3rd day of March, 2015.
/s/ David A. Sanders
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE