Carrillo v. Toyota Motor Corporation

Filing 40

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter granting 38 Motion to Quash. (mlt)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO CHARLES CARRILLO, Plaintiff, v. CV 17-1150 WJ/JHR TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, Defendant. ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENA This matter comes before the Court on the City of Santa Fe’s Motion to Quash Subpoena [Doc. 38], filed December 5, 2018. Generally, the Motion argues that the subpoena issued to the City must be quashed because the issuing party, Toyota Motor Corporation, did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31 when issuing it. [See generally, id.]. Toyota did not respond to the City’s Motion. [See Doc. 39 (Notice of Completion of Briefing)]. Toyota’s failure to respond to the City’s Motion has consequences. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b), “[t]he failure of a party to file and serve a response in opposition to a motion within the time prescribed for doing so constitutes consent to grant the motion.” D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.1(b). According to the Tenth Circuit, “local rules of practice, as adopted by the district court, have the force and effect of law, and are binding upon the parties and the court which promulgated them....” Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 626 F.2d 784, 796 (10th Cir. 1980) (citation and quotation omitted). Accordingly, the City’s Motion is granted, and Toyota’s subpoena is quashed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A)(iv). 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. ________________________ JERRY H. RITTER U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?