Atwood et al v. Cheney et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 1 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders on 8/4/2016. (rrz)

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

DAVID GARLAND ATWOOD, II
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO: 1:16cv105-SA-DAS

MIKE CHENEY,
ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This matter is before the court on Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance
Company’s motion [1] to quash plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum. Plaintiff’s subpoena was
issued by this court and required Farm Bureau to produce “[a]ny documents, records, photos, or
other information showing any increase in insurance coverage or any request for increased
coverage on the Atwood Lakehouse property during the year before the fire on 11-11-2009;
address 10859 Attala Road, 4202, Kosciusko, Mississippi 39090 owned by Emmett Atwood.”
Farm Bureau’s principal place of business is Jackson, Mississippi, and that is where the
information sought is currently located. As a consequence, this court previously had to deny
Farm Bureau’s motion to quash because it had to be filed with the court in the district where
compliance is required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(a). Thereafter, Farm Bureau filed the present
motion with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Because
Farm Bureau consented to having the motion transferred back to the issuing court, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ordered [7] its transfer pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f). Farm Bureau’s motion to quash is now properly before
this court.

As grounds for quashing plaintiff’s subpoena, Farm Bureau first argues it is defective
because it demands production of documents from “Farm Bureau Insurance,” which Farm
Bureau claims is a non-existent entity. Farm Bureau’s motion also lists the full gambit of legal
boilerplate, such as the subpoena is overly broad, seeks information that is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, seeks information that was prepared
in anticipation of litigation, etc. Notably, Farm Bureau’s motion fails to provide the court with
any precedent or analysis to support its barrage of defenses. Furthermore, Farm Bureau has not
contested that it was, in fact, the insurer of the property at issue in this action. The court also
notes plaintiff is proceeding pro se. As a consequence, his pleadings, as well as the subpoena at
issue here, are subject to less scrutiny than those drafted by an attorney. Because the information
being sought is highly relevant to plaintiff’s remaining claim against James Jackson, the court
finds that Farm Bureau’s motion to quash should be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance
Company’s motion to quash is denied, and it shall provide plaintiff with the information sought
in his subpoena duces tecum.
SO ORDERED this, the 4th day of August, 2016.
/s/ David A. Sanders
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE