Ferguson v. Waid

Filing 93

MINUTE ORDER Striking Robert Gould's 92 Objections to Subpoena as procedurally improper signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (TH) (cc: non-party Robert Gould via first class mail)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

SANDRA L. FERGUSON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. C17-1685RSM
MINUTE ORDER STRIKING ROBERT
GOULD’S OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA

v.
BRIAN J. WAID AND THE WAID
MARITAL COMMUNITY,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on non-party Robert Gould’s Objections to

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Purported Subpoena, filed with the Court on May 30, 2018. Dkt. #92. Mr. Gould does not
attach the purported subpoena in question.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 states in part:
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or
tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or
attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to
inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling any or all of the materials
or to inspecting the premises—or to producing electronically
stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection
must be served before the earlier of the time specified for
compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection
is made, the following rules apply:

27
28

ORDER STRIKING ROBERT GOULD’S OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 1

(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving
party may move the court for the district where compliance is
required for an order compelling production or inspection.

1
2
3

(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and
the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s
officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.

4
5
6
7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B). This rule separately discusses how to file a motion to quash a
subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3).

8

Given the limited information before it, the Court believes Mr. Gould is objecting to a

9

subpoena to produce documents as contemplated by Rule 45 above. However, instead of (or in

10
11
12

addition to) serving these objections on the party who served the subpoena, Mr. Gould has filed
these objections with the Court. Mr. Gould has not filed a motion to quash the subpoena.

13

The Court will not rule on these objections. The Court finds that these objections are

14

not properly before the Court, although they have now been served on the party by virtue of the

15

Court’s CM/ECF system. The next step, if it happens, would be for the party who served the

16

subpoena to “move the court… for an order compelling production.”

Fed. R. Civ. P.

17
18

45(d)(2)(B)(i). Given all of the above, the Court will STRIKE the Objections, Dkt. #92, as

19

procedurally improper and remove them from the Court’s Motions Calendar.

20

DIRECTS the Clerk to mail a copy of this Order to Robert Gould at P.O. Box 6227 Edmonds,

21

WA 98026.

22
23
24
25
26
27

DATED this 30th day of May, 2018.
WILLIAM McCOOL, Clerk
By:

/s/ Paula McNabb
Deputy Clerk

28

ORDER STRIKING ROBERT GOULD’S OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 2

The Court