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)

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