Tucker et al v. Perez et al

Filing 90

ORDER sustaining 83 Objection to Subpoena filed by Farm Credit Services of America. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (JAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DOYLE TUCKER, and NEVA TUCKER;
Plaintiffs,

8:13CV367

vs.
ORDER
VICTOR PEREZ; et. al;
Defendants.
Non-parties Farm Credit Services of America, FLCA and Farm Credit Services of
America, PCA (collectively referred to as “FCSA”) object to a subpoena issued by
plaintiffs Doyle Tucker and Neva Tucker which commanded FCSA to produce all
documents and loan files for defendants MF&R, Inc. and Meyers Brothers. FCSA also
moves for an order protecting its rights and the rights of non-parties if the court decides
to enforce the subpoena. (Filing No. 83).

As explained in its filing, defendants MF&R, Inc. and Meyers Brothers have not
consented to releasing the requested documents, production has not been ordered by the
court, and the requested documents include confidential information of non-parties who
have neither consented to disclosing their documents nor been notified of the subpoena.
FCSA states that before the court enters an order enforcing the subpoena, non-parties
should be notified and afforded an opportunity to object, the parties and their counsel
should be subject to a protective order to preserve the confidentially of the documents
produced and to prohibit the use of those documents in any other proceedings, and the
plaintiffs should be ordered to reimburse FCSA for the costs FCSA will incur to review
the documents and redact confidential non-party information. (Filing No. 83, at CM/ECF
p. 3, ¶ 8).

FCSA filed its objection and request for relief on November 12, 2014. More than
14 days have passed and no response has been filed. The plaintiffs’ subpoena demanded
production on November 21, 2014. FCSA did not comply, and the plaintiffs did not file a
motion to compel.

After considering FCSA’s objection and arguments,

IT IS ORDERED that the Objection to Subpoena filed by Farm Credit Services of
America, (Filing No. 83), is sustained.

December 1, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites.
The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

2