Melton Properties, LLC et al v. Illinois Central Railroad Company et al

Filing 172

ORDER denying 126 Motion to Quash. Provided however, GHD shall have until July 14, 2020 to respond to the subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 5/12/20. (bfg)

Case: 4:18-cv-00079-DMB-JMV Doc #: 172 Filed: 05/12/20 1 of 1 PageID #: 2733

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
MELTON PROPERTIES, LLC et al.
V.

PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18-cv-00079-DMB-JMV

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD
COMPANY et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion [126] of GHD Services, Inc. (“GHD”) to
quash or modify subpoena duces tecum served by the plaintiffs. For the reasons discussed below,
the motion will be denied. Provided however, GHD’s response to the subpoena is not due until
July14, 2020.
GHD’s motion to quash is premised on the same arguments as those set forth in ICRR’s
[125] memorandum in support of its motion for protective order, which concerned the same
subpoena at issue here. Doc. #124-1; Doc. #126-1.1
Because the Court has, today, entered an order with respect to the aforementioned motion
of ICRR, the court hereby incorporates by reference the legal and factual analysis contained
therein. Having done so, the motion to quash is DENIED.
Provided however, GHD shall have until July 14, 2020 to respond to the subpoena.
SO ORDERED, this Tuesday, May 12, 2020.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

See also Doc. #126 at 3 (“For the reasons fully explained and supported in ICRR’s Motion for Protective Order and
supporting memorandum, which GHD incorporates herein by reference, GHD moves the Court for an order pursuant
to Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(iii) to quash or modify the subpoena to the extent it seeks the production of information ICRR
contends is privileged and/or otherwise protected under Rule 26 and/or the work product doctrine.”).