Douglas Group v. TF Publishing, Inc. et al

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Quash, construed as a motion to strike # 53 , is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing will be held in this matter to discuss the parties' discovery deadline issues on Monday, November 7, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 16S before District Judge Rodney W. Sippel. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/2/16. (CAR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DOUGLAS GROUP,
Plaintiff,
v.
TF PUBLISHING, INC. and
JIM PURCELL,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15 CV 1367 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendants TF Publishing, Inc. and Jim Purcell filed a motion to quash a subpoena
issued by Plaintiff Douglas Group to BMO Harris Bank. On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff
served on Defendants a Notice to Take Deposition by Subpoena stating that Plaintiff
intended to depose the custodian of records for BMO Harris on November 4, 2016. The
discovery deadline in this case was September 27, 2016. Defendants object to Plaintiff
scheduling and conducting a deposition and subpoenaing records after the discovery
deadline.
I ordered Plaintiff to show cause why I should not construe the motion to quash as
a motion to strike and strike the subpoena. On October 31, 2016, Plaintiff responded and
moved to extend the discovery deadline to December 31, 2016, so Plaintiff can obtain the
financial records they seek from BMO Harris and depose the custodian of records. As
Defendant had noted, it appears that on September 7, 2016, the parties agreed to postpone
two depositions that were scheduled to take place before the discovery deadline and to

take them after I rule on Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff
asserts that Defendants requested this postponement and that Plaintiff agreed to it because
he understood that the parties were agreeing to a general continuation of discovery
deadlines to accomplish discovery after the summary judgment ruling.
The parties cannot agree to extend the discovery deadline set in the scheduling
order without leave of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). As a result, I will strike the
subpoena issued by Plaintiff Douglas Group to BMO Harris Bank and set a hearing to
discuss these discovery issues. See Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Centimark Corp.,
2009 WL 1702291, at *1 (E.D. Mo. June 16, 2009) (striking a subpoena at plaintiff’s
request and explaining that although only a third party upon whom a subpoena is served
can move to quash the subpoena, any party can oppose an opposing party’s late discovery
request).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Quash, construed as a
motion to strike #[53], is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing will be held in this matter to discuss
the parties’ discovery deadline issues on Monday, November 7, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in
Courtroom 16-South.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 2nd day of November, 2016.

2