From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wiley v. Covad Communications Company

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Mar 29, 2010
Civil Action No. 09-cv-01799-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Mar. 29, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 09-cv-01799-WYD-MEH.

March 29, 2010


ORDER


Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum to United Air Lines, Inc. [filed February 12, 2010; docket #42]. The motion is referred to this Court for disposition. (Docket #43.) Defendant responded to the motion; however, to date, Plaintiff has not replied. Oral argument would not assist the Court in adjudicating this matter. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Quash.

Defendant represents that Plaintiff received notice of the subpoena to United Air Lines on January 26, 2010. (Docket #50 at 6.) The subpoena required production of documents on or before February 2, 2010. ( Id. at 3; see also docket #39-2.) Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 and D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A, Plaintiff had until February 2, 2010, to confer with Defendant and object to the subpoena. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(2)(B) (providing that an objection to a subpoena must be "served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served.").

Plaintiff filed his first Motion to Quash on January 29, 2010, which the Court denied without prejudice for failure to comply with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A on February 1, 2010. (Dockets ##39, 41.) The Court agrees with Defendant's assertion that, at this point, Plaintiff still could have conferred and filed a renewed motion before the original deadline on February 2, 2010. (Docket #50 at 4, 6.) Plaintiff did not file the present motion until February 12, 2010. (Docket #42.) Even considering the four days tolled with the filing of Plaintiff's first Motion to Quash, Plaintiff did not file a renewed motion within a reasonable time after this Court's February 1, 2010, minute order. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a reply in support of his request, and Plaintiff offers no other excuse for the tardiness of his objection. Therefore, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 and D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum to United Air Lines, Inc. [filed February 12, 2010; docket #42] as untimely.


Summaries of

Wiley v. Covad Communications Company

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Mar 29, 2010
Civil Action No. 09-cv-01799-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Mar. 29, 2010)
Case details for

Wiley v. Covad Communications Company

Case Details

Full title:DARREN WILEY, Plaintiff, v. COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Mar 29, 2010

Citations

Civil Action No. 09-cv-01799-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Mar. 29, 2010)