Hellman v. Greystone Nevada, LLC et al

Filing 70

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 63 Defendants Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion hearing set for 5/18/2022 is VACATED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 4/13/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
***

4
5

Peter J. Hellman,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8

Case No. 2:20-cv-00559-JCM-BNW
ORDER re ECF No. 63

v.
Greystone Nevada, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10
11

Defendants move to compel non-party Dr. Kimberly Adams, M.D. to sit for a deposition

12

and to produce documents (enumerated at ECF No. 64-10 at 5–9) relating to Plaintiff’s treatment.

13

ECF No. 63 at 1–2. They also request “attorneys’ fees and costs expended to obtain her

14

deposition and documents, and . . . to hold Dr. Adams in contempt if she fails to do as ordered.”

15

Id. at 3.

16

Defendants explain that they initially served Dr. Adams with a subpoena to attend a

17

deposition set for August 11, 2021 and to produce documents related to her treatment of Plaintiff.

18

Id. at 6. Defendants and Dr. Adams subsequently agreed to move the deposition to August 20,

19

2021. Id. But Dr. Adams did not attend the rescheduled deposition. ECF No. 64-9.

20

As a result, Defendants served her with a renewed subpoena to attend a deposition

21

scheduled for February 18, 2022 and to produce the same documents previously requested. ECF

22

No. 63 at 6. While Defendants filed proof of service of the subpoena relating to the August

23

deposition (ECF No. 64-8 at 10), they did not file proof of service relating to the February

24

deposition subpoena (see ECF No. 64-10). Nonetheless, Defendants vacated the deposition

25

because “Dr. Adams’ office represented that documents were forthcoming.” ECF No. 63 at 6; see

26

also ECF No. 64-7 at 5 (“As discussed we are taking your Zoom deposition off calendar

27

tomorrow.”). Additionally, they note (in their motion to compel) that while “Dr. Adams’ office

28

1

did send [them] various documents,” the submitted documents were ones they already possessed.

2

ECF No. 63 at 6.

3

While the Court would be inclined to grant Defendants’ motion only to the extent that it

4

would order Dr. Adams to sit for a deposition and to produce Plaintiff’s relevant medical and

5

billing records, it is premature to do so at this time. This is because Defendants vacated the

6

February 18, 2022 deposition and, as a result, there is nothing that the Court can compel. If

7

Defendants choose to serve Dr. Adams with a renewed subpoena for a deposition and production

8

of documents and she does not comply, then they may refile their motion to compel. The Court

9

cautions Defendants that any renewed motion must include proof of personal service and a proper

10
11
12
13
14

meet-and-confer declaration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b); LR IA 1-3(f).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel at ECF No. 63 is
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion hearing set for May 18, 2022 is
VACATED.

15
16

DATED: April 13, 2022.

17
18

BRENDA WEKSLER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2