Smith et al v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc. et al

Filing 68

ORDER denying 48 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 11/8/13. (GRE, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
MICHAEL T. SMITH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BAKER CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-cv-207-CLC-SKL

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant H.M., Jr.’s motion to quash [Doc. 48]. Defendant H.M., Jr.
filed his motion to quash on September 16, 2013, seeking to quash the subpoena [Doc. 45] served
upon him by Plaintiffs. The subpoena requested that Defendant H.M., Jr. produce documents,
photographs, and other items to Plaintiffs’ counsel on September 16, 2013.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel [Doc. 53] on September 23, 2013, seeking to compel
Defendant H.M., Jr. to allow Plaintiffs to inspect the documents and materials that Plaintiffs
alleged H.M., Jr. had taken wrongful possession of from Hugo Mendoza’s personal effects. The
Court issued an Order [Doc. 62] on October 17, 2013, ordering the parties to confer regarding both
the motion to quash and the motion to compel. On October 23, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a notice
[Doc. 65] that the parties had been able to resolve their discovery issues after conferring.
Plaintiffs therefore withdrew the motion to compel [Doc. 53].
No party has filed any notice regarding the pending motion to quash. The motion to quash
and the motion to compel involved the same documents and materials in Defendant H.M., Jr.’s
possession, which were sought by Plaintiffs. As Plaintiffs provided notice that they had resolved
the discovery issues involving these documents and items, and withdrew the motion to compel, it

would appear that the motion to quash the subpoena involving the same documents is now moot.
Accordingly, the motion to quash is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/fâátÇ ^A _xx
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2