Burke et al v. USF Reddaway, Inc.
Filing
92
ORDER overruling plaintiff's 77 objection; affirming the magistrate judge's 71 order granting defendant's motion to quash. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/10/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
JAMES BURKE; et al.,
10
Plaintiffs,
11
v.
12
USF REDDAWAY, INC.,
13
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3:13-cv-0017-LRH-WGC
ORDER
14
15
Before the court is plaintiff James Burke’s (“Burke”) objection to the magistrate judge’s
16
January 14, 2014 order granting defendant USF Reddaway, Inc.’s (“Reddaway”) motion to quash
17
subpoena served on non-party Dr. Jeffrey Sanders (“Dr. Sanders”) (Doc. #60). Doc. #77. Defendant
18
Reddaway filed a response to the objection. Doc. #80.
19
I.
20
Facts and Procedural Background
On July 2, 2012, Burke filed a complaint against Reddaway alleging a single cause of action
21
for negligence. Doc. #1, Exhibit A. On December 3, 2013, Burke served a subpoena request on
22
Kytle’s personal physician, Dr. Sanders. A copy of the subpoena was also served on Reddaway’s
23
counsel.
24
On January 9, 2014, Reddaway filed a motion to quash the subpoena of Dr. Sanders
25
(Doc. #60) which was granted by the magistrate judge (Doc. #71). Thereafter, Burke filed the
26
present objection to the magistrate judge’s order. Doc. #77.
1
2
II.
Discussion
Local Rule IB 3-1 authorizes a district judge to reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a
3
magistrate judge pursuant to LR IB 1-3 where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is
4
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In his objection, Burke contends that the magistrate judge’s
5
order granting Reddaway’s motion to quash was clearly erroneous because Reddaway failed to
6
timely move to quash, and therefore waived any and all objections to the subpoena. Burke also
7
contends that the magistrate judge’s order was clearly erroneous because the order did not define
8
why the subpoenaed records were irrelevant to the present action.
9
The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that
10
Burke has failed to show that the magistrate judge’s order is either contrary to law or clearly
11
erroneous. First, the court notes that Burke simply rehashes the arguments outlined in his opposition
12
to Reddaway’s motion to quash. See Doc. #57. Second, Burke fails to introduce any new evidence
13
or identify any legal or factual error in the magistrate judge’s order. The court notes that the
14
magistrate judge heard argument on the motion to quash and, at the hearing, made several specific
15
rulings that addressed both Burke’s timeliness challenge and the relevancy of the discovery request.
16
See Doc. #71. Thus, the magistrate judge took Burke’s arguments into consideration before deciding
17
the motion. Accordingly, the court shall affirm the magistrate judge’s order.
18
19
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s objection (Doc. #77) is OVERRULED.
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s order granting defendant’s motion
21
to quash (Doc. #71) is AFFIRMED.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
DATED this 10th day of June, 2014.
24
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
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?