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