Opinion
MOTION TO QUASH RECORD SUBPOENAS SERVED ON THIRD ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'[Doc. No. 106]
CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Quash Record Subpoenas served on third parties Dr. Pearl Grimes and Dr. Rudolph Ross, submitted November 15, 2006. [Doc. No. 106.] Plaintiff submitted its opposition on November 30, 2006. [Doc. No. 110.] Defendants submitted a reply on December 7, 2006. [Doc. No. 114.] The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).
Defendants objected to the subpoenas listing the following grounds: overly broad; unduly burdensome; oppressive; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and not relevant to the subject matter of the action. The subpoenaed individuals made no objection. Dr. Grimes responded to the subpoenas with the production of responsive documents. Dr. Ross responded with a verification that he had no responsive documents. Apparently, neither subpoenaed party had difficulty responding to the breadth or scope of the requests, and Plaintiff is not challenging the responses. Defendants' objections are therefore moot and the motion is DENIED.
The Court notes that Defendants previously raised issues about the confidentiality of the documents produced pursuant to these subpoenas, a matter that was addressed in the Court's November 2, 2006 Order. [Doc. No. 102.] Defendants did not assert confidentiality or privilege objections as the basis of this Motion to Quash.
IT IS SO ORDERED.