Carrillo v. Toyota Motor Corporation

Filing 40

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

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