Opinion
6:23-cv-1842-PGB-LHP
02-23-2024
RAVINDRA PATEL and PRATIMA PATEL, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant
ORDER
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:
MOTION: FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO QUASH/MODIFY SUBPOENA AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS AMENDED RULE 30(B)(6) NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEORECORDED DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM (Doc. No. 25)
FILED: February 21, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as moot.
Defendant seeks to quash a subpoena and requests a protective order to preclude the video deposition of non-party Nelson Forensics. Doc. No. 25. While the motion, which is not styled as time-sensitive or an emergency, see Local Rule 3.01(e), complies with the 500-word limit of the Standing Order on Discovery Motions, the motion provides no legal basis for the requested relief, nor requests additional briefing. See Doc. No. 17, ¶¶ 2, 7. Moreover, the motion was filed at 5:12 p.m. on February 21, 2024. Doc. No. 25. However, according to the attached subpoena, the deposition was scheduled to take place at 11:00 a.m. on February 22, 2024, leaving virtually no time for any response by Plaintiffs, even under any expedited schedule. Doc. No. 25-2, at 1. Defendant nowhere explains why it waited until the literal 11th hour to file its motion and does not request a stay of the deposition pending resolution of the motion. Doc. No. 25. This is particularly troubling give that Defendant acknowledges that it was served with the subpoena on January 15, 2024, more than one month prior. Id. at 2. In any event, the Court presumes that the deposition has now gone forward given that the motion is silent as to whether the parties agreed to continue the deposition, and a motion not acted upon is deemed denied.
The Court denied the first iteration of this motion for failure to comply with the Standing Order on Discovery Motions, see Doc. No. 24. However, that motion was filed at 4:47 p.m. on February 20, 2024, less than 48 hours before the scheduled deposition. Doc. No. 22. That motion also was not designated as time-sensitive or an emergency, did not identify the date and time of the scheduled deposition other than by attaching a copy of the subpoena itself, did not request a stay of the deposition, and Plaintiffs would have not been able to respond to the motion prior to the scheduled deposition. See Doc. No. 17, ¶ 5.
Accordingly, given that the deposition took place yesterday as scheduled, Defendant's motion (Doc. No. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED .