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