Ademiluyi v. Phillips

Filing 68

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 67 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 7/2/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

APRIL ADEMILUYI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DAVID LEE PHILLIPS,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00507-MMD-CWH
ORDER

12
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification (#67), filed on June
13
30, 2014. Plaintiff requests that the Court clarify its Order #65, which granted in part and denied in
14
part Defendant’s Motion to Quash AT&T Subpoena #60 and denied Defendant’s Motion to Quash
15
Cox Communications, Inc. Subpoena #52. Plaintiff seeks clarification as to how the Court
16
addressed the text message section of the AT&T subpoena and the timing of when AT&T was to be
17
notified to release the records. Further, the Court received a phone call from Plaintiff representing
18
that Defendant has told AT&T to release the records, but that AT&T did not understand the Court’s
19
Order #65. In addition, the Court received a phone call from the AT&T Legal Department
20
expressing the need for clarification. Therefore, the Court will clarify its June 24, 2014 Order
21
regarding the AT&T subpoena at issue in Defendant’s Motion to Quash #60. To the extent that
22
Plaintiff seeks clarification of the terms of the stipulated protective order that shall be filed by July
23
8, 2014, the Court will deny that request as premature.
24
On June 24, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s Motion to
25
Quash #60. The only part of the Motion to Quash #60 that the Court granted was to order that
26
AT&T shall not provide “content including text message content” to Plaintiff. The Court found
27
that the telephone call details and text message details - including date, time, location, and phone
28
number - were relevant and not subject to the attorney-client privilege, and therefore, shall be

1

provided by AT&T to Plaintiff.

2

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification (#67) is granted in

4
5
6
7
8
9

part and denied in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on AT&T
Legal Department, Attention: Paula Phillips, by fax at 832-213-0232.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a certificate of service to verify that
she served a copy of this order on the AT&T Legal Department as directed.
DATED this 2nd day of July, 2014.

10
11

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2