Federal National Mortgage Association v. Willis et al
Filing
55
ORDER that #42 Plaintiff's Motion to Quash is granted. FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing scheduled for Monday, April 4, 2016 is vacated. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 4/1/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CLARENCE MOSES WILLIS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:15-cv-02366-JCM-GWF
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas (#42), filed on
14
February 29, 2016. To date, no party has filed a response to this motion and the time for opposition
15
has now expired.
16
On or about February 17, 2016, Defendant Ernest C. Aldridge (“Defendant”) mailed
17
Plaintiff’s counsel seven Subpoenas to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit
18
Inspection of the Premises (“Subpoenas”). See Motion (#42), Exhibit A. The Subpoenas requested
19
production of the documents by March 1, 2016. Plaintiff now requests that the Court quash the
20
Subpoenas for several reasons. First, Plaintiff argues that the Subpoenas are premature because the
21
parties have yet to hold a Rule 26(f) conference. Second, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant should
22
have served requests for production of documents pursuant to Rule 34, and that Defendant’s use of a
23
Rule 45 subpoena was an attempt to circumvent the rules of discovery. Third, Plaintiff argues that
24
the information sought, especially that relating to its counsel, is irrelevant and used as a tool to
25
harass its counsel. Fourth, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant did not provide a sufficient amount of
26
time to respond to the Subpoenas because much of the information sought is not in the possession of
27
Plaintiff’s counsel. Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Subpoenas should be quashed because they
28
were not personally served on non-parties Laurel I. Handley and Krista J. Nielson. The Court
1
agrees. Defendant’s Subpoenas seek information more properly sought through Rule 34 requests for
2
production of documents, they are premature, and the information requested from Plaintiff’s counsel
3
is irrelevant and harassing in nature. Accordingly,
4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas (#42) is granted.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing scheduled for Monday, April 4, 2016 is
6
7
vacated.
DATED this 1st day of April, 2016.
8
9
10
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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?