Barber v. American Family Home Insurance Company

Filing 97

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 88 Motion to Quash, denying the motion to quash and granting the motion for a protective order; granting in part and denying in part 89 Motion to Dismiss, denying as to the exte nt Mrs. Barber asks this court for an order compelling "the compliance of all parties to which the subpoenas are addressed as well as compelling Counter-Defendant to execute any documentation required by the third party to ensure compliance," and finding the motion as moot as to the request to quash. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 11/05/2012.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Nancy Barber,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
American Family Home Insurance
)
Company,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
American Family Home Insurance
)
Company,
)
)
Counter Claimant, )
)
vs.
)
)
Kelly D. Barber and Nancy Barber,
)
)
Counter Defendants. )
)

C/A No.: 3:11-cv-2328-JFA

ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH,
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER,
AND MOTION TO COMPEL

This matter comes before the court on Counter Defendant Kelly D. Barber’s
Motion to Quash, or in the Alternative, for a Protective Order. (ECF No. 88). After
reviewing the submissions of both Kelly D. Barber and Nancy Barber on this motion, the
court hereby denies the motion to quash and grants the motion for protective order. The
court finds good cause for the protective order, as Plaintiff’s subpoenas are overbroad and
seek irrelevant information beyond the proper scope of discovery. Thus, the court limits
the scope of discovery as follows: (1) with regard to the subpoena directed to the South
Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”), limit the production of documents to
1

those SCDC inmate records dated on or after January 22, 1998, which indicate the period
of Mr. Barber’s incarceration or detention, if any; (2) with regard to the subpoena
directed to the Lexington County Probation and Parole (“LCPP”), limit the production of
documents to those LCPP records dated on or after January 22, 1998, which relate to Mr.
Barber’s residency; and (3) with regard to the subpoena directed to the Social Security
Administration (“SSA”), limit the production of documents to those SSA records dated
on or after January 22, 1998, which relate to Mr. Barber’s residency.
The court finds Mrs. Barber’s Motion to Dismiss Counter-Defendant’s Motion to
Quash (ECF No. 89) to be moot (as motions to dismiss motions are not procedurally
proper). To the extent that Mrs. Barber asks this court for an order compelling “the
compliance of all parties to which the subpoenas are addressed as well as compelling
Counter-Defendant to execute any documentation required by the third party to ensure
compliance,” (ECF No. 89, p. 1), this court denies that motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 5, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2