Higdon v. State of Tennessee et al

Filing 132

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 122 Motion to issue subpoenas. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley, Jr on 5/19/2014. (copy mailed) (KMK, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

JAMES T. HIGDON

)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:13-CV-586
(REEVES/SHIRLEY)

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.

Defendants.

)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Miscellaneous Motion of Subpoenas [Doc. 122], filed
on May 9, 2014. In his motion, the Plaintiff requests that the Court order the following people to
appear for the May 21, 2014 motion hearing before the undersigned:1 Jack Cannon, Mayor of
Jacksboro, Tennessee, Phillip W. Vandergriff, Defendant Harry Burden, Defendant Robbie
Goins, Sheriff of Campbell County, Tennessee, Reid A. Spaulding, attorney for Defendant Town
of Jacksboro, and Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter for Tennessee. The
Plaintiff requests their presence so that they may provide testimony on the Plaintiff’s behalf
“concerning matters already presented before this court.”
The State of Tennessee filed a response [Doc. 124] arguing that a subpoena requiring
1

On April 17, 2014, the Court entered an Order [Doc. 119] setting a motion hearing on May 21, 2014, to address the
following motions: Plaintiff’s Motion for Transparency and Disclosure [Doc. 22], Plaintiff’s Motion and Amended
Motion for Subpoena on Robbie Goins [Docs. 43, 76], Plaintiff’s Motion for Subpoena on Kamille Bond, Duces
Tecum [Doc. 44], Plaintiff’s Motion for Subpoena on Robert E. Cooper [Doc. 45], Plaintiff’s Motion for Subpoena
on Town of Jacksboro, Duces Tecum [Doc. 81], Defendant Kamille Bond’s Motion to Quash Subpoena [Doc. 83],
Defendant City of Jacksboro’s Motion to Strike Proof of Service of Joel Clark in His Individual Capacity [Doc. 90],
and Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Clarify and Make Transparency Doc #94 [Doc. 95].

General Cooper’s appearance would create an undue burden because his testimony is not
necessary in order for the Court to rule on the motions scheduled to be heard before the
undersigned on May 21. Attorney Spaulding also filed a response [Doc. 125] on his behalf as
well as Mayor Cannon. The response characterizes the Plaintiff’s motion as a “harassment
tactic” and further states that discovery at this stage of the proceedings is improper because a
scheduling order has not been entered.

In addition, Attorney Spaulding argues that any

testimony he or Mayor Cannon could provide would be unnecessary and irrelevant in aiding the
Court during the May 21 motion hearing. Finally, Sheriff Goins filed a response [Doc. 127]
asserting that the Plaintiff’s motion seeks to obtain discovery which is improper at this point of
the case because a discovery conference has not been held nor has a scheduling order been
entered as the parties are currently waiting for the District Court to rule on several dispositive
motions.
The Court finds the Plaintiff has provided an insufficient basis to support the instant
motion. The purpose of the May 21 motion hearing is for the Court to hear argument from the
Plaintiff and defense attorneys regarding the relief requested in the various motions scheduled to
be heard by the Court. If the Court determines that evidence and/or testimony is necessary in
order for it to make a ruling or determination on any of the motions, the Court will reset the
hearing so it may hear the necessary testimony or review the appropriate evidence. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff’s Miscellaneous Motion of Subpoenas [Doc. 122] is not-well taken and is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

2