Ruhlmann et al v. Rudolfsky et al

Filing 129

ORDER re 127 Motion for Protective Order and 128 Motion to Quash filed by Glenn Rudolfsky. The Court hereby ORDERS Defendant to file a copy of the disputed subpoenas by 2:00 p.m. today, 11/15/16. Cf. Local Rule 26-7(b). Plaintiffs shall fi le a response to the motion by 10:00 a.m. on 11/16/16.The Court further SETS a telephonic hearing on the motion for 8:30 a.m. on 11/17/16. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/15/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
MAX RUHLMAN, et al.,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
GLENN RUDOLFSKY, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00879-RFB-NJK
ORDER

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for protective order or to quash subpoenas, filed

17

on an emergency basis. Docket Nos. 127, 128. The Court hereby ORDERS Defendant to file a copy

18

of the disputed subpoenas by 2:00 p.m. today, November 15, 2016. Cf. Local Rule 26-7(b). Plaintiffs

19

shall file a response to the motion by 10:00 a.m. on November 16, 2016.

20

The Court further SETS a telephonic hearing on the motion for 8:30 a.m. on November 17, 2016.

21

Counsel shall appear telephonically by calling the Court conference line at 877-402-9757 at least five

22

minutes prior to the hearing. The conference code is 6791056. In order to ensure a clear recording of

23

the hearing, the call must be made using a land line phone. Cell phone calls, as well as the use of a

24

speaker phone, are prohibited.

25

At the hearing, the Court will entertain argument on the motion generally. In addition, counsel

26

shall be prepared to specifically address the following. First, whether the issues raised can be alleviated

27

through the submission and issuance of a stipulated protective order. See, e.g., Paws Up Ranch, LLC

28

v. Green, 2013 WL 6184940, at *4 (D. Nev. Nov. 22, 2013) (citing In re Heritage Bond Litig., 2014 WL

1

1970058, at *5 n.12 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2004)) (noting that privacy concerns regarding subpoenaed bank

2

records could be sufficiently addressed through a stipulated protective order). Second, whether (1) the

3

law provides standing to a party to move to quash a subpoena based on a “personal right or privilege”

4

in the documents sought and, if so, (2) whether a party has a “personal right or privilege” in his banking

5

records. See Paws Up Ranch, 2013 WL 6184940, at *2 (noting splits of authority on both issues).

6

Third, whether the subpoenaed documents are duplicative of the bank records recently produced in

7

redacted form by Defendant.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: November 15, 2016

10
11

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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