Lifetree Trading Pte v. Washakie Renewable Energy
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 3 Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to Insta-Pro International. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 7/10/18. (dla)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
LIFE TREE TRADING, PTE., LTD.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:18-mc-00190-RJS-PMW
WASHAKIE RENEWABLE ENERGY,
LLC,
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Defendant.
Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
District Judge Robert J. Shelby referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M.
Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Before the court is Defendant Washakie
Renewable Energy, LLC’s (“Washakie”) Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to Insta-Pro
International. 2 The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the parties.
Pursuant to Civil Rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will determine
the motion on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).
Before addressing the above-referenced motion, the court sets forth the following
background. Following judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Plaintiff LifeTree Trading, Ltd. (“LifeTree”) filed the instant case to
1
See docket no. 5.
2
See docket no. 3.
register the foreign judgment. The registration of the foreign judgment was entered in this case
on March 1, 2018. 3 After the registration of the foreign judgment, Lifetree issued a postjudgment discovery subpoena to a third party, Insta-Pro International. Washakie then filed the
motion to quash the subpoena before the court, notwithstanding the fact that the subpoena was
directed to a third party.
Courts in this district have ruled that before determining whether to quash a subpoena, it
must be determined that the party moving to quash the subpoena has standing. See Zoobuh, Inc.
v. Rainbow Int’l Corp., No. 2:14-cv-00477-DN, 2015 WL 2093292, at *2 (D. Utah May 5, 2015)
(“[I]t must first be determined whether [the movant] has standing to move to quash the
subpoena.”); W. Vision Software, L.C. v. Process Vision, LLC, No. 1:12cv155, 2013 WL 1411778,
at *3 (D. Utah Apr. 8, 2013) (“In order to bring a motion [to quash a subpoena], a party must
have standing.”). “Generally, a party does not have standing to object to a subpoena issued to a
third party, unless the party challenging the subpoena has a personal right or privilege with
respect to the subject matter sought by the subpoena.” Richards v. Convergys Corp., Nos. 2:05CV-00790-DAK, 2:05-CV-00812 DAK, 2007 WL 474012, at *1 (D. Utah Feb. 7, 2007); see also
Smith v. Schryer, No. 2:10-cv-01268-CW-DBP, 2013 WL 2519384, at *1 n.1 (D. Utah June 10,
2013); W. Vision Software, L.C., 2013 WL 1411778, at *1.
In Washakie’s motion to quash, it has neither argued nor shown it has standing to bring
such a motion. Nowhere has it contended that it has a personal right or privilege to the
3
See docket no. 2.
2
information sought by the subpoena. Without more, the court cannot conclude that Washakie has
standing. Accordingly, Washakie’s motion to quash 4 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of July, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
4
See docket no. 3.
3
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?