Young et al v. Pleasant Valley School District et al
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Rieder's 655 Motion to Quash and 658 Supplemental Motion to Quash are GRANTED; Counsel for Plaintiff's Subpoena as to Mr. Rieders [655, Ex. 2] is QUASHED; No later than 7/24/2017 Mr. Rieders may submit an accounting of reasonable costs and fees incurred in preparing the instant Motion and Supplemental Motion to Quash. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 7/10/2017. (jn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRUCE H. SMITH, JR.,
JULY 10, 2017
On June 20, 2017, this Court scheduled a July 13, 2017
evidentiary hearing and oral argument on counsel for Plaintiff’s
Motion for Fees. ECF No. 652.
On June 28, 2017, Clifford A. Rieders, Esquire, filed the instant
motion to quash in connection with a June 26, 2017 subpoena
to appear at July 13 hearing, which was delivered to his office
by Plaintiff’s counsel. ECF No. 655.
This Court has previously reset the range of reasonable fees for
the Williamsport division of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania in Beattie v. Line Mountain Sch. Dist., No. 4:13-
CV-02655, 2014 WL 3400975 (M.D. Pa. July 10, 2014) and
later applied those rates in Keister v. PPL Corp., — F. Supp. 3d
—, No. 4:13-CV-00118, 2016 WL 688031 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 19,
2016), aff’d, 677 F. App’x 63 (3d Cir. 2017).
Accordingly, the sole issues for the July 13 hearing are: (1) the
reasonable rate that counsel for Plaintiff’s performance in this
litigation has merited; (2) the number of hours counsel for
Plaintiff reasonably expended on this litigation; and (3) whether
counsel for Plaintiff’s fee submissions comport with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
In his motion to quash, Mr. Rieders avers that he has no prior
knowledge of the instant litigation’s subject matter, of the
upcoming hearing’s scope, or of counsel for Plaintiff’s work
product in particular.
Mr. Rieders did not provide an affidavit in support of counsel
for Plaintiff’s motion for fees.
Mr. Rieders states that he recollects no prior communication
with counsel for Plaintiff.
Mr. Rieders also states that he has an existing scheduling
conflict with the July 13 hearing.
“The subpoenaing party must first show that its requests are
relevant to its claims or defenses, within the meaning of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).” In re Domestic Drywall
Antitrust Litig., 300 F.R.D. 234, 239 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
Because counsel for Plaintiff has not shown that Mr. Rieders
possesses any personal knowledge of the three issues
enumerated above or that his testimony would be relevant to the
hearing, the subpoena could summarily be quashed on that
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(3)(A)(iv) also provides that
a court may quash a subpoena if it “subjects a person to undue
Because Mr. Rieders has no knowledge of the instant matter,
has insufficient time to prepare for the hearing, and has an
existing scheduling conflict on the date of the hearing, the
subpoena could be quashed on this additional ground.
AND NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Mr. Rieders’s Motion to Quash, ECF No. 655, and Supplemental
Motion to Quash, ECF No. 658, are GRANTED.
Counsel for Plaintiff’s Subpoena as to Mr. Rieders, ECF No. 655, Ex.
2, is QUASHED.
No later than July 24, 2017, Mr. Rieders may submit an accounting
of reasonable costs and fees incurred in preparing the instant Motion
and Supplemental Motion to Quash.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
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?