From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mason v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Apr 18, 2006
No. 04-1795-PCT-ECV (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2006)

Opinion

No. 04-1795-PCT-ECV.

April 18, 2006


ORDER


Non-party Jim Burton of Jim Burton Realty, Inc. has filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena (Doc. #31) in which he objects to the Subpoena Duces Tecum served upon him by Defendant's counsel. Mr. Burton contends that his fiduciary duty to his clients, the Plaintiffs, prevents him from disclosing the requested documents. He further contends that because he is more than 100 miles from the subpoena site, the subpoena must be quashed.

As Defendant argues in its Response (Doc. #32), there is no recognized privilege between a real estate agent and his client,see A.R.S. § 12-2231, and Plaintiff has cited no authority establishing the existence of such a privilege. Regarding Mr. Burton's location, Defendant points out that the subpoena does not require Mr. Burton to personally appear, only to produce documents. As a result, the 100 mile restriction in Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply. For these reasons, the motion to quash will be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That the Motion to Quash Subpoena (Doc. #31) filed by non-party Jim Burton of Jim Burton Realty, Inc. is denied.


Summaries of

Mason v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Apr 18, 2006
No. 04-1795-PCT-ECV (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2006)
Case details for

Mason v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:Robert and Linda Mason, Plaintiffs, v. American Family Mutual Insurance…

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Apr 18, 2006

Citations

No. 04-1795-PCT-ECV (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2006)