Federal National Mortgage Association v. Willis et al

Filing 77

ORDER that #71 Motion to Quash Subpoenas is granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 6/27/16. (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 (#71), filed on

14

May 27, 2016. Defendant Clarence Moses Willis (“Defendant”) filed his Objection to Plaintiff’s

15

Motion to Quash Subpoenas on June 9, 2016.

16

On or about May 13, 2016, Defendant delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel two Subpoenas to

17

Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of the Premises (“Subpoenas”).

18

See Motion (ECF No. 71), Exhibit A. The Subpoenas requested all documents regarding Plaintiff’s

19

counsel’s affidavit in support of ex parte application for temporary restraining order and motion for

20

preliminary injunction as well as the name of the agent and contact information for Plaintiff. Id.

21

The Subpoenas requested production of documents by May 27, 2016. Id.

22

Plaintiff requests that the Court quash the Subpoenas for two reasons. First, Plaintiff asserts

23

that Defendant should have served requests for production of documents pursuant to Rule 34, and

24

that Defendant’s use of a Rule 45 subpoena was an attempt to circumvent the rules of discovery.

25

Plaintiff argues that Defendant should not be permitted to use a Rule 45 subpoena to obtain

26

documents on an expedited basis. Second, Plaintiff argues that the information sought relating to

27

Aldridge Pite, LLP’s representation of Plaintiff is irrelevant and used as a tool to harass its counsel.

28

Further, Plaintiff has already provided the contact information and name of attorney for its counsel
to Defendant.

1

Defendant’s Subpoenas seek information more properly sought through Rule 34 requests for

2

production of documents and the information requested from Plaintiff’s counsel is irrelevant and

3

harassing in nature. Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas (#71) is granted.

5

DATED this 27th day of June, 2016.

6
7
8

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2