Teal v. Ellis et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying as moot 27 Motion to Quash Subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 11/4/2013. (eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-169-FDW-DCK
KOREE TEAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CB RICHARD ELLIS, INC., BOB TERENZI,
TINA CLAWSON, JAYAN DRAKE,
SETH PUCKETT, and DIANE PERRY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff’s “Notice Of Motion And
Motion To Quash Subpoena” (Document No. 27) filed September 19, 2013. This matter has
been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and is ripe for
disposition. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the
undersigned will deny the motion.
Plaintiff’s pending motion seeks to quash a subpoena served on Integra Staffing by
Defendant CB Richard Ellis, Inc. demanding production of certain employment records relating
to Plaintiff Koree Teal. (Document No. 27-1, pp.6-12). It appears that Integra Staffing was
served with the subpoena, and Plaintiff copied, on or about September 6, 2013.

Id. The

subpoena commanded production on September 20, 2013 at 2:00 pm. Id. Notably, Plaintiff did
not file her “Notice Of Motion And Motion To Quash Subpoena” (Document No. 27) until
September 19, 2013.
“Defendant’s Response To Plaintiff’s Motion To Quash” (Document No. 30) was filed
on October 7, 2013. Defendant persuasively asserts that the documents sought by the subpoena

were “directly relevant to Plaintiff’s lawsuit” and “appropriately tailored to the issues raised in
Plaintiff’s complaint.” (Document No. 30, p.3). Moreover, Defendant notes that Plaintiff failed
to serve her motion to quash on Integra Staffing, and subsequently Integra Staffing produced
documents in response to the request. Id. As such, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s motion is
now moot. Plaintiff’s reply brief was due on or before October 18, 2013, but no reply in support
of her motion to quash has been filed to date.
Based on the sound reasoning and cited legal authority in “Defendant’s Response…”, as
well as Plaintiff’s failure to file a reply brief, the undersigned agrees that Plaintiff’s “Notice Of
Motion And Motion To Quash Subpoena” (Document No. 27) is moot. As noted by Defendant,
the “rules of discovery are to be accorded broad and liberal construction” and relevant
information that is discoverable may not necessarily be admissible at trial. (Document No. 30,
p.2) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979) and Hickman v.
Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Notice Of Motion And Motion To
Quash Subpoena” (Document No. 27) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Signed: November 4, 2013

2