Mid America Bank and Trust Company v. Small Business Administration et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 30 motion to quash; denying 36 motion to quash; denying 37 motion to quash Signed by District Judge Gary A. Fenner on 5/13/09. (Mitchell, Lisa)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION MID-AMERICA BANK & TRUST COMPANY, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) MIDDLE AMERICA WIRELESS, LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) Case No. 08-3336-CV-S-GAF ORDER Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Mid-America Bank and Trust Company's ("Plaintiff") Motions to Quash. (Doc. ##30, 36, 37). In its Motions, Plaintiff seeks to quash Defendant Middle America Wireless, LLC's ("Defendant") requests for production of Suspicious Activity Reports ("SARs"), Bank Examination Reports, and written communications. Id. Preliminarily, the Court notes it entered an Order on April 21, 2009 at Plaintiff's request staying a ruling on these pending Motions until the parties could confer and Plaintiff could file proper certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). (Doc. #51). That rule states a motion for a protective order "must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action."1 The Court does not see any subsequently filed certification in the record, Defendant avers that as of May 1, 2009 counsel for Plaintiff had not conferred with counsel for Defendant, and counsel for Plaintiff does not dispute this averment in its reply brief. (Doc. #62, p.1). While by its Plaintiff concedes the instant Motions required compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). (Doc. #39) ("The motions to quash are in the nature of a protective order under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 26(5)(C)(1) and counsel wishes to comply with this rule."). 1 terms, the Court's Order of April 21 staying a ruling on these Motions appears still in effect in the absence of any certification filed by Plaintiff, the Court views Plaintiff's filing of its reply brief and failure to state that it intends to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) in the near future as an indication that the Plaintiff now seeks a ruling on its Motions. Under the plain terms of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), Plaintiff's Motions to Quash are DENIED for failure to comply with the terms of the rule. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Gary A. Fenner Gary A. Fenner, Judge United States District Court DATED: May 13, 2009

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?