United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
DAVID MCMILLAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR CHILDREN, KATELYNN ELIZABETH, BRIANNA LYNNE, SOPHIA LORENA, AND QUILLAN DAVID MCMILLAN, ET AL.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ET AL.
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s
(“Chase) Motion to Quash Subpoena for Documents (R.
Doc. 30) and Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Documents or
Alternatively for Protective Order (R. Doc. 31), both filed
on December 5, 2016. Plaintiffs oppose both motions. (R. Doc.
Court set November 28, 2016 as the final deadline to complete
all discovery in this action and to file related motions. (R.
Doc. 24). The instant motions were timely filed because they
were “filed within seven days after the discovery
deadline and pertain to conduct occurring during the final
seven days of discovery.” LR 26(g).
date, Plaintiff's counsel issued three Rule 45 subpoenas
directed at Chase and two non-parties, Green Concepts
Landscape and Lawn Maintenance (“Green Concepts”)
and CBRE, Inc. (“CBRE”). (R. Doc. 30-2; R. Doc.
31-2; R. Doc. 31-2). The subpoenas seek the production of any
insurance policies “that would cover any work done by
Green Concepts at the Chase Bank branch 2828 Monterrey Blvd.
Baton Rouge, LA 70814.” (R. Doc. 30-2; R. Doc. 31-2; R.
Doc. 31-2). The subpoenas sought compliance in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, on December 16, 2016. The parties do not indicate
when the subpoenas were served on Chase, Green Concepts, and
governs discovery from non-parties through the issuance of
subpoenas. As “the court for the district where
compliance is required, ” this Court has the authority
to quash or modify the subpoenas at issue. Fed.R.Civ.P.
45(d)(3). With regard to the subpoenas served on Green
Concepts and CBRE, which are non-parties, the Court has the
authority to issue a protective order to protect Chase
“from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1).
Court will grant the instant motions on the basis that the
subpoenas at issue sought compliance over two weeks after the
close of discovery. This Court's Local Rules provides
that “[w]ritten discovery is not timely unless the
response to that discovery would be due before the discovery
deadline” and “[t]he responding party has no
obligation to respond and object to written discovery if the
response and objection would not be due until after the
discovery deadline.” LR 26(d)(2). This Court has
expressly held that a subpoena served before the discovery
deadline is nevertheless untimely if the date of compliance
is beyond the discovery deadline. See,
e.g., Sandifer v. Hoyt Archery, Inc., No.
12-322, 2015 WL 3465923, at *2 (M.D. La. June 1, 2015)
(“Although it was served 4 days before the expert
discovery deadline, the subpoena was untimely as it required
compliance outside of the March 31, 2015 deadline.”);
Dixon v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 13-179, 2014 WL
6474355, at *3 (M.D. La. Nov. 19, 2014) (“Although it
was served 6 days before the expert discovery deadline, the
subpoena was untimely as it required compliance outside of
the September 2, 2014 deadline.”); see also Hall v.
State of Louisiana, No. 12-657, 2014 WL at 2560715, at
*1 (M.D. La. June 6, 2014) (discovery requests served on
party 14 days before discovery deadline were untimely as the
party had 30 days to respond to such discovery requests).
Moreover, a Rule 45 subpoena cannot be used to shorten the
30-day deadline to respond to discovery requests provided to
a party. See Thomas v. IEM, Inc., No. 06-886, 2008
WL 695230, at *2 (M.D. La. Mar. 12, 2008) (“Rule 45
subpoenas, although not technically precluded by the language
of Rule 45 from being served upon parties to litigation, are
generally used to obtain documents from non-parties and are
clearly not meant to provide an end-run around the regular
discovery process under Rules 26 and 34.”); Pearson
v. Trinity Yachts, Inc., No. 10-2813, 2011 WL 1884730,
at *1 (E.D. La. May 18, 2011) (“[S]ervice on a named
party in a lawsuit of a subpoena duces tecum that provides
short notice circumvents the orderly procedures from requests
for production of documents between parties provided
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.”).
opposition to the instant motions, Plaintiffs argue that
there is good cause pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to grant an extension of the
discovery deadline. (R. Doc. 37 at 4-7). Plaintiffs should
have requested such relief prior to the issuance and service
of the instant subpoenas, and in advance of the expiration of
the applicable deadline.Considering the record, the Court will
not grant such relief through the filing of an opposition
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that J.P. Morgan Chase Bank,
N.A.'s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Documents (R. Doc.
30) and Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Documents or
Alternatively for Protective Order (R. Doc. 31) are GRANTED.
The subpoenas served on J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Green
Concepts Landscape and Lawn Maintenance, and CBRE, Inc. (R.
Doc. 30-2; R. Doc. 31-2; R. Doc. 31-3) are QUASHED.
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall send a copy of this
Order to Green Concepts Landscape and Lawn Maintenance, and
CBRE, Inc. within 3 days of the date of this Order.
 As provided in the Scheduling Order,
“a motion to extend any deadline set by this Order must
be filed before its expiration.” (R. Doc. 6 at
 The Court will issue a separate ruling
on Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline (R.
Doc. 43) filed on December 20, 2016. If granted, that ruling
may permit some of the discovery at ...