Cutts v. Richland Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 35

ORDER Granting 27 Motion to Quash Subpoenas. See Order for details/deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 3/8/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

MICHAEL CUTTS,

8
9
10

v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01525-JCM-PAL
Plaintiff,

ORDER
(Mot Quash and for Prot Ord – ECF No. 27)

RICHLAND HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

Before the court is the Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas or for a Protective Order

13

(ECF No. 27) by Defendant Richland Holdings, Inc. d/b/a AcctCorp of Southern Nevada. The

14

court has considered the motion, Plaintiff Michael Cutts’ Opposition (ECF No. 29), and

15

defendant’s Reply (ECF No. 32).

16

On February 27, 2018, Judge Mahan granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, and dismissed

17

plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. See Order (ECF No. 30); Clerk’s Judgment (ECF No. 31).

18

The instant motion was filed February 22, 2018, and requests an order quashing subpoenas issued

19

to three insurance and bond companies and the State of Nevada Department of Business and

20

Industry Financial Institutions.

21

discovery. The subpoenas were served February 1, 2018, four days before the discovery cutoff,

22

and required production of documents on the last day of the discovery cutoff, February 5, 2018.

23

Defendants argue the subpoenas violate a December stipulation and order extending discovery for

24

the limited purposes specified. See Stipulation (ECF No. 25); Order (ECF No. 26). Additionally,

25

plaintiff failed to comply with notice requirements of Rule 45(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil

26

Procedure, and the subpoenas seek information that is irrelevant and overbroad. Defendant

27

requests an order quashing the subpoenas and requiring plaintiff to inform the third parties that no

28

production is required, and that plaintiff “disgorge himself of any documents received from the

Alternatively, it requests a protective order forbidding the

1

1

subpoena and non-use of the documents” and any other unknown productions.

2

Plaintiff responds that the stipulation and order allowed the deposition of Paul Liggio who

3

was deposed on January 31, 2018, and “testified to new information prompting plaintiff’s need to

4

subpoena proof of insurance from the insurance companies.” The subpoenas were served on short

5

notice to the non-parties so plaintiff’s counsel granted reasonable extensions as requested. In the

6

meet and confer with defense counsel, plaintiff proposed that disclosure of subpoenaed documents

7

be allowed with defendant being allowed “to object subsequently.” However, defendant rejected

8

this proposal.

9

On March 1, 2018, defendant file a reply stating that, although the case has been dismissed,

10

the dispute is not moot and a protective order is still necessary. Defendant does not know what

11

the status of responsive documents is, or what the productions might entail. However, defendant

12

believes plaintiff will certainly use documents obtained pursuant to these subpoenas in other

13

pending cases before this court. Therefore, the court should quash the subpoenas or enter a

14

protective order forbidding the discovery, and order plaintiff to disgorge himself of any documents

15

received from the subpoenas.

16

Having reviewed and considered the matter, the court finds that the subpoenas were issued

17

in violation of the court’s order limiting the discovery that could be taken during the extension

18

granted. The subpoenas were also issued in violation of Rule 45(a)(4), the purpose of which is to

19

allow opposing parties an opportunity to object to a Rule 45 subpoena before service.

20

IT IS ORDERED that:

21

1. Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED and the subpoenas are QUASHED.

22

2. Plaintiff shall immediately serve a copy of this order on the non-parties served with the

23

subpoenas.

24

3. Any documents received from the three insurance and bond companies and from the

25

State of Nevada Department of Business & Industry Financial Institutions as a result

26

of the subpoenas must immediately be destroyed.

27

4. A protective order is entered preventing plaintiff from keeping or retaining a copy of

28

any documents received pursuant to these subpoenas. Further, the documents and/or
2

1

any information obtained by reviewing them shall not be shared with or disseminated

2

to any persons or entities including any of AcctCorp’s competitors.

3
4
5

5. Plaintiff shall have until March 14, 2018, to file a certificate of compliance with this
order.
DATED this 8th day of March, 2018.

6
7
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3