Johnson v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Filing 6

ORDER granting 3 Motion to Quash. Plaintiff may serve a subpoena at a later date, if necessary, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 1/16/2013. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-011-RJC-DCK
LEE S. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendant Experian Information
Solutions, Inc.’s Motion To Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum” (Document No. 3) filed
January 15, 2013. This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the
motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will grant the motion.
Pro se Plaintiff Lee S. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Complaint” (Document No. 1)
initiating this action on January 8, 2013, and then served a “Subpoena To Produce Documents,
Information, Or Objects Or To Permit Inspection Of Premises In A Civil Action” (Document No.
3-1) on Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Defendant”), on or about January 10,
2013. Plaintiff’s “Subpoena To Produce…” commanded Defendant to “Produce all credit report
disputes, letters, date of phone calls from 01/01/05 – 12/31/12 . . . Produce credit disputes
results from 01/01/05 – 12/31/12 . . . [and] Produce an audit on Lee S. Johnson ….” by January
15, 2013. (Document No. 3-1).

Defendant contends that the “Subpoena To Produce…” is improper and unduly
burdensome, as well as premature. (Document No. 4) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3), 26(d), and
34). The undersigned agrees. In the interests of judicial economy, and noting that Plaintiff
demanded production of certain documents and information by January 15, 2013, the
undersigned finds that the pending “…Motion To Quash…” should be resolved without further
delay.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendant Experian Information Solutions,
Inc.’s Motion To Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum” (Document No. 3) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff may serve a subpoena at a later date, if necessary, consistent with the requirements of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Signed: January 16, 2013

2