Kiser v. Pride Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 67

ORDER Denying as unnecessary 66 non-party Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc.'s Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena Duces Tecum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 3/28/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 *** 5 ANTHONY KISER, et al., 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff, v. PRIDE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:11-cv-00165-JCM -VCF ORDER 11 Before the court is non-party Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc.’s (hereinafter “Cox”) 12 Motion To Quash Or Modify Subpoena Duces Tecum. (#66). On March 7, 2012, plaintiffs Anthony 13 Kiser et al served non-party Cox with a subpoena dues tecum. (#66 Exhibit A). The subpoena 14 requested Cox to “produce and permit inspection and copying of” documents and electronically stored 15 information by March 30, 2012. Id. On March 21, 2012, Cox served plaintiffs with written objections 16 to the subpoena (#66 Exhibit B) and filed the instant motion to quash (#66). 17 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(2)(B), “[a] person commanded to produce 18 documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in 19 the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the material 20 or to inspecting the premises–or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms 21 requested.” Rule 45 also states that “[t]he objection must be served before the earlier of the time 22 specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B). If a 23 timely objection is made, “the serving party may move the issuing court for an order compelling 24 production or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B)(i). 25 As Cox’s written objections (#66 Exhibit B) were timely served on plaintiffs on March 21, 2012, 26 the instant motion to quash (#66) is unnecessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B). If plaintiffs dispute Cox’s 1 objections (#66 Exhibit B), they may move the court for an order compelling production or inspection. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B)(i). Prior to filing a motion to compel, the parties must comply with Local 3 Rule 26-7(b), which requires the parties to meet and confer in a sincere effort to resolve the matter 4 without court action. 5 Accordingly, and for good cause shown, 6 IT IS ORDERED that non-party Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc.’s (hereinafter “Cox”) 7 8 Motion To Quash Or Modify Subpoena Duces Tecum (#66) is DENIED as unnecessary. DATED this 28th day of March, 2012. 9 10 11 CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

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?