United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoena (R.
Doc. 60) filed on July 19, 2017. The deadline for filing an
opposition has not expired. LR 7(f). Because the subpoena
facially violates the Court's scheduling order, there is
no need for additional briefing.
Court set July 12, 2017 as the final deadline to complete all
discovery except experts and to file related motions. (R.
Doc. 43). The instant motion is timely filed because
it was “filed within seven days after the discovery
deadline and pertain[s] to conduct occurring during the final
seven days of discovery.” LR 26(d)(1).
12, 2017, counsel for defendant Michael Rojas issued a Rule
45 subpoena directed at the Louisiana Department of Health
& Hospitals Office of Aging and Adult Services, a
non-party to this action. (R. Doc. 60-2). The subpoena seeks
the production of “[c]ertified copies of any and all
records relating to investigations or reports concerning
Gloria Garside, DOB: 2/7/1941.” (R. Doc. 60-2 at 1).
The subpoena seeks compliance in Gonzales, Louisiana, on
August 25, 2017. Plaintiff does not indicate when or if the
subpoena was served. Plaintiff does indicate, however, that
her counsel received a copy of the subpoena on July 14, 2017.
(R. Doc. 60-1 at 1).
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 subpoena at issue. Fed.R.Civ.P.
45(d)(3). The Court also has the authority to issue a
protective order to protect a party or person “from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1).
Court will grant the instant motion on the basis that the
subpoena at issue seeks compliance over one month 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).
that defendant Michael Rojas did not seek an extension of the
non-expert discovery deadline prior to the issuance and
service of the instant subpoena, and in advance of the
expiration of the applicable deadline,  the Court does
not find good cause for extending the discovery deadline with
regard to the instant subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion
to Quash Subpoena (R. Doc. 60) is GRANTED. The subpoena
served on the Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals
Office of Aging and Adult Services (R. Doc. 60-2) is QUASHED.
FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for defendant Michael Rojas
shall send a copy of this Order to Louisiana Department of
Health & Hospitals Office of Aging and Adult Services
upon receipt of this Order.
 The Court extended the non-expert
discovery deadline to August 11, 2017 solely for the limited
purpose of completing the deposition of Melanie Fields. (R.
 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45
(a)(4) requires that “before it is served on the person
to whom it is directed, a notice and copy of the subpoena
must be served on each party.” If the subpoena dated
July 12, 2017 was served on Louisiana Department of Health
and Hospitals Office of Aging and Adult Services prior to
July 14, 2017, then it appears it would be in violation of
Rule 45 and quashed on that basis as well.
 As provided in the Scheduling Order,
“a motion to extend any deadline set by this Order must
be filed before its expiration.” ...