Ademiluyi v. Phillips

Filing 88

ORDER Granting 76 Motion to Enforce Subpoenas Issued to TMobile. Denying 84 Motion to Inquire About Status of 76 Motion. Granting 87 Motion to Amend 76 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 8/11/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

Download PDF
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 to Enforce Subpoenas Issued to T13 Mobile (#76), filed on June 28, 2014. This matter is also before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to 14 Inquire About Status of Motion #76 (#84), filed on August 6, 2014, and Plaintiff’s Motion to 15 Amend Motion #76 (#87), filed on August 7, 2014. The Court also considered Plaintiff’s 16 Certificate of Compliance (#79), filed August 4, 2014. 17 Plaintiff issued subpoenas to T-Mobile on June 24, 2014, July 7, 2014, and July 9, 2014 for 18 the phone records of Daryl Parks from April 2012 until April 2013. She seeks a court order to 19 receive the records directly claiming that T-Mobile objected by indicating that it would release the 20 records to the court only. On August 6, 2014, Senior Corporate Counsel for T-Mobile US, Inc. 21 responded by indicating that they would prefer to submit the records to the court for in camera 22 review to weigh the privacy rights of the non-party. T-Mobile notes that public disclosure of phone 23 records has been a contested issue in this case. However, T-Mobile indicates that it is ready to 24 produce the records and will provide them to Plaintiff directly if that is the court’s directive. 25 The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s Motion to enforce the subpoenas issued to 26 T-Mobile. Plaintiff’s Motion (#87) to amend her initial Motion (#76) by adding T-Mobile’s 27 response is granted. The Court notes that T-Mobile did not raise an objection on behalf of the non28 party, but merely expressed a preference as to the required form of production. As such, the Court 1 finds that the phone records shall be produced directly to the Court and an in camera review is not 2 needed at this time. 3 Plaintiff’s Motion (#87) inquiring as to the status of Motion (#76) is denied. Plaintiff 4 indicated that she was unaware that she cannot write a letter to the court. She is directed to review 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 in addition to Local Rule 7-6(b). Further, Plaintiff requested the 6 status of a motion that was not ripe. Plaintiff should review Local Rule 7-2, which sets forth the 7 briefing schedule for all motions. As an attorney and party to this action, Plaintiff must abide by 8 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules. 9 10 Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Subpoenas Issued to T- 11 Mobile (#76) is granted to the extent that T-Mobile may provide the phone records directly to 12 Plaintiff rather than the Court. 13 14 15 16 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Inquire About Status of Motion #76 (#84) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Motion #76 (#87) is granted. DATED this 11th day of August, 2014. 18 19 ______________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?