Bernegger v. Gray & Associates LLP et al

Filing 121

ORDER denying 115 Motion to Quash; denying 115 Motion for Protective Order, signed by Judge William C Griesbach on 01-12-2009. ODess, like any witness, is required to respond to a subpoena absent a showing of good cause to justify entry of a protective order. No such showing has been made here. See Order for full detail. (cc: all counsel) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
P E T E R M. BERNEGGER, P l a i n t i f f, v. G R A Y & ASSOCIATES LLP, et al., D e fe n d a n t s . C a se No. 07-C-1028

O R D E R DENYING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA A N D FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

N o n -p arty and attorney Abigail O'Dess has filed an expedited motion to quash the subpoena an d for a protective order relieving her of the obligation to appear for a deposition scheduled for Jan u ary 14th, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. The subpoena was issued by Peter Bernegger, the pro se plaintiff in the above matter. The action involves Bernegger's claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FD C P A ") against Gray & Associates and one or more of its attorneys. O'Dess claims that she is u n aw are of information she could have regarding the preparation or filing of Gray's pleadings in state co u rt, federal court, or Gray's alleged contact with Bernegger through unauthorized parties. She further states that even if she has such information, Bernegger can obtain it from other sources. In response, Bernegger indicates that he has been unable to obtain the information he seeks fro m other sources and, based on O'Dess's involvement of the case, there is good reason to believe th at she possesses discoverable information. U n d er the circumstances O'Dess's motion must be denied. The Court is not in a position to determ ine with any certainty whether O'Dess possesses information that is either itself relevant or may

lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. O'Dess, like any witness, is required to respond to a sub po ena absent a showing of good cause to justify entry of a protective order. No such showing has been made here. T h is does not mean, however, that there is no remedy in the event that Bernegger is abusing th e subpoena process. In the event the deposition by Bernegger reveals that he has not acted in good faith , O'Dess is free to seek recovery of costs or other sanctions in court at that time. As of now, h o w ev er and based on the record as it now stands, the motion will be denied. S O ORDERED this 12th day of January, 2009.

s/ William C. Griesbach WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH U n ited States District Judge