Opinion
18 Civ. 9875 (KMK) (AEK)
06-15-2021
Solstein, Plaintiff, v. Mirra, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
THE HONORABLE ANDREW E. KRAUSE, U.S.M.J.
On June 1, 2021, the Sullivan County District Attorney filed a motion to quash the subpoena served upon her by Plaintiff. ECF No. 81. By operation of Local Civil Rule 6.1(a)(2) of the Local Rules of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff's deadline to respond to that motion was June 11, 2021, but the Court has not received any response.
Given the Court's understanding that Plaintiff has reached a settlement with Defendant Senator, and that Plaintiff is seeking a default judgment against Defendant Mirra, it is not clear why there would be any basis to require the Sullivan County District Attorney to respond to a subpoena in this matter, as discovery is effectively completed. That said, Plaintiff is hereby permitted (but not required) to submit a written response to the motion to quash on or before June 25, 2021. If, in light of the developments in this case, Plaintiff is no longer seeking production of documents in response to the subpoena, there is no need for Plaintiff to submit anything to the Court regarding the subpoena. If Plaintiff does not submit any response to the motion by June 25, 2021, the motion to quash will be granted.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to the pro se Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.