United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division
A.E. and E.W., Plaintiffs,
JOSHUA NIELD, ET AL., Defendants.
J. Aboulhosn United States Magistrate Judge
November 26, 2018 Defendant City of Huntington filed its
Motion to Quash or Modify
Subpoena [ECF No. 137] in reference
to a subpoena duces tecum issued by Plaintiffs via
email to Defendant's counsel at 5:01 pm on Friday,
November 16, 2018 commanding the production of “all
records for [Defendant] Josh Nield involving every instance
Nield arrested, or issued a citation to, a female. Also, all
records of any/all complaints made by females against any HPD
officer involving assaults or sexual misconduct since Jan 1,
1995” by November 27, 2018 at 10:00 am. [ECF No.
support of its Motion, Defendant
City of Huntington asserts the following:
subpoena is an improper vehicle for a Rule 34 request for
production of documents, which governs discovery.
subpoena provides an unreasonable time to comply - 11
calendar days, only 6 of which were actual business days.
Counsel for Defendant City of Huntington conferred with
counsel for Plaintiffs requesting the production request to
be more narrowly tailored.
Counsel for Defendant City of Huntington requested that
counsel for Plaintiffs provide thirty days in order to
respond as provided by Rule 34, however, counsel for
Plaintiffs refused, but countered that twenty days from the
date when the subpoena was emailed.
subpoena requests documentation that spans eight-years of
Defendant Nield's employment as a police officer with the
Huntington Police Department.
subpoena is unlimited in its scope which may invariably
include juveniles, sexual assault victims or other personal
identifying information of non-party litigants that Defendant
City of Huntington must ensure such documentation is
appropriately redacted or withheld to protect those privacy
interests. Because of the breadth of the scope inherent in
the subpoena, Defendant City of Huntington would require
additional time in order to protect these privacy interests.
subpoena was issued without Notice to all parties prior to
service, as required under Rule 45(a)(4).
subpoena was sent just two days after the hearing before the
undersigned, during which the undersigned conferred with
Judge Chambers to extend the discovery deadline as well as
the trial in this matter to accommodate Plaintiffs despite
Plaintiffs failure to conduct discovery within the original
Rule 45(d)(3)(A), the party that is subject to the subpoena
duces tecum may move to quash or modify the
subpoena. Rule 45(d)(3)(A) provides that:
On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance
is required must quash or ...