Walker et al v. North Las Vegas Police Department et al

Filing 125

ORDER. The Court hereby GRANTS 116 Henderson's motion to quash subpoena. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/17/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
THOMAS WALKER, et al.,

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15

Pending before the Court is Non-Party City of Henderson’s (“Henderson”) motion to quash

16

Plaintiffs’ subpoena. Docket No. 116. Plaintiffs filed a response, and Henderson filed a reply.

17

Docket Nos. 120, 124. The Court finds this motion properly resolved without oral argument. See

18

Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, Henderson’s motion to quash, Docket No. 116,

19

is hereby GRANTED.

20

I.

10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
12
CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, et al.,
13
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:14-cv-01475-JAD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 116)

BACKGROUND

21

On September 11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the instant action against the North Las Vegas Police

22

Department and North Las Vegas Police Officers Paul Maalouf and Travis Snyder. Docket No. 1.1

23

Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that Officers Maalouf and Snyder shot and killed their two pet pit pull

24

dogs while executing a search warrant on their property. Docket No. 88 at 5-6. On March 9, 2017,

25

Plaintiffs served a subpoena to produce certain documents on the Custodian of Records for

26

Henderson’s Police Department. Docket No. 116 at 16-21. On March 23, 2017, Henderson filed

27
28

1

The City of North Las Vegas was later added as a defendant. Docket No. 88.

1

the instant motion to quash subpoena. Docket No. 116.

2

II.

ANALYSIS

3

i.

Meet and Confer

4

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiffs submit that the Court should deny Henderson’s motion

5

to quash because Henderson failed to meet and confer with them before filing it. Docket No. 120

6

at 4-5. Henderson submits that it was not required to meet and confer with Plaintiffs because, inter

7

alia, Rule 45,2 which governs subpoenas and motions to quash subpoenas, does not explicitly require

8

a movant to do so. Docket No. 124 at 9. Even assuming, arguendo, that a meet and confer was

9

required in this instance, “the Court ultimately retains discretion to decide discovery matters even

10

where no proper meet and confer has been conducted.” Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech Co., Ltd., 2013 WL

11

4714273, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 30, 2013) (citing Fifty-Six Hope Rd. Music, Ltd. v. Mayah Collections,

12

Inc., 2007 WL 1726558, at *6 (D. Nev. June 11, 2007)). The Court therefore exercises its discretion

13

to address the merits of Henderson’s motion to quash subpoena.

14

ii.

Motion to Quash Subpoena

15

Rule 45 governs the issuance of subpoenas requiring non-parties to produce designated

16

documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). A court must grant a timely motion to quash or

17

modify a subpoena that fails to allow reasonable time to comply, requires a person to comply beyond

18

the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c), requires disclosure of privileged or other protected

19

matter, if no exception or waiver applies, or subjects a person to undue burden. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

45(d)(3)(A). The movant seeking to quash a subpoena bears the burden of persuasion. Green v.

21

Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624, 653 (C. D. Cal. 2005).

22

Whether a subpoena is unduly burdensome depends on the facts of each specific case.

23

Green, 226 F.R.D. at 653. Additionally, “courts have incorporated relevance as a factor when

24

determining motions to quash a subpoena, particularly when considering whether there is an undue

25

burden.” Bird v. PSC Holdings I, LLC, 2013 WL 12108107, at *1 (S. D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2013)

26
27
28

2

Unless otherwise stated, references to “Rules” denote the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2

1

(internal quotations and citation omitted). “‘It is well established that the scope of discovery under

2

a subpoena issued pursuant to Rule 45 is the same as the scope of discovery allowed under Rule

3

26(b)(1).’” Paws Up Ranch, LLC v. Green, 2013 WL 6184940, at *4 (D. Nev. Nov. 22, 2013)

4

(quoting Painters Joint. Comm. v. Emp. Painters Tr. Health & Welfare Fund, 2011 WL 4573349,

5

at *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2011)). “Generally speaking, the Federal Rules allow parties to obtain

6

discovery that is . . . relevant to a claim or defense of any party.” Paws Up Ranch, LLC, 2013 WL

7

6194940, at *3 (internal citation omitted).

8

In this instance, Plaintiffs subpoenaed Henderson to produce:

9

1. Any and all police reports from 2010 to the present where Henderson Police
Department Special Weapons and Tactics team served a search warrant and a dog or
dogs were present at the location of the search warrant.

10
11

2. Any and all policies and procedures referencing the use of force against dogs and
other animals by police officers in effect from 2010 to present.

12
13

3. Any and all training materials, and requirements for Henderson Police Department
officers that reference use of force against dogs and other animals by police officers
in effect from 2010 to present.

14
15

4. Any and all documents that list the number or frequency of incidents where police
officers of the Henderson Police Department Special Weapons and Tactics team
injured or killed an animal in effect from 2010 to present.

16
17

5. Any and all policies and procedures that reference when and if police officers will
seek the assistance of animal control officer(s) in effect from 2010 to present.

18

Docket No. 116 at 47-48. Henderson submits that the requested documents are irrelevant to this

19

action and that the request is unduly burdensome. Id. at 5-12. Plaintiffs respond that they are

20

merely seeking records that would otherwise be available pursuant to Nevada’s Public Records Act

21

and that Henderson has failed to demonstrate that the documents are irrelevant or that the subpoena

22

is unduly burdensome. Docket No. 120 at 5-11. In reply, Henderson emphasizes its position that

23

the documents sought are irrelevant and that complying with the request would be unduly

24

burdensome. Docket No. 124 at 2-9.

25

The Court agrees with Henderson. This entire case revolves around an alleged incident that

26

involved the North Las Vegas Police Department, not the Henderson Police Department. See, e.g.,

27
28

3

1

Docket No. 88 at 5-6. Indeed, the only two references to the Henderson Police Department in

2

Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint involve entirely different incidents. See id. at 7. The

3

Henderson Police Department’s involvement in those incidents bears no relation to the instant

4

action.

5

“instances of police use of force against dogs,” Docket No. 120 at 7, is simply irrelevant to whether

6

this issue has affected the relevant municipality in this action, the City of North Las Vegas. 3

7
8
9
10

Whether, as Plaintiffs submit, “neighboring municipalities” may have experienced

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Henderson’s motion to quash subpoena. Docket
No. 116.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 17, 2017.

11

___________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

3

27

Plaintiffs’ discovery request is also overbroad, as they request documents from 2010 to
present, when the incident is alleged to have occurred in 2012. Docket No. 116 at 47-48; Docket
No.124 at 4; Docket No. 88 at 5-6. The Court need not reach this issue, however, as the requested
discovery from the Henderson Police Department is irrelevant to the instant case.

28

4

26