Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Zeisler

Filing 38

ORDER denying 33 Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash subpoena. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 6/20/17. (wam)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 1:15-cv-805 The Standard Fire Ins. Co., District Judge Susan J. Dlott Plaintiff, Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion For Protective Order And To Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum vs. Dan Zeisler, Defendant. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued by Counsel for Defendant. (Doc. 33.) Plaintiff seeks to quash the subpoenas duces tecum issued to Wade Insurance Agency and to Matthew R. Pais. (Docs. 33-1, 33-2.) Discovery motions are not permitted without leave of the Court pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order of Civil Procedures section I.(D.). The pending motion was filed in violation of the Standing Order. Additionally, Plaintiff has not established cause for the issuance of a protective order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) or 45(d). Plaintiff has not clearly identified who Wade Insurance Company and Matthew R. Pais are in relationship to parties and facts of this case, why it would impose an undue burden upon them to be deposed or to produce documents, and upon what grounds Plaintiff is asserting their rights.1 1 Based upon early filings, the Court assumes that Wade Insurance Company insured the houseboat at the center of this lawsuit. 1 Accordingly, the Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties are directed to comply with section I.(D.) of the Standing Order for this dispute and for all discovery disputes. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 20, 2017 S/Susan J. Dlott__________________ Judge Susan J. Dlott United States District Court 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?