Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ross v. Jenkins

United States District Court, D. Kansas

July 31, 2019

KENDRA ROSS, Plaintiff,
v.
ROYALL JENKINS, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Daniel D. Crabtree United States District Judge.

         This matter comes before the court on a “Response to Deposition” filed by movants Ephraim Woods, Griegory Moten, and Dana Peach. Doc. 169. The court construes this filing to make the following requests: a request to quash plaintiff's subpoenas; a request for a protective order; a request for a permanent injunction; a request for sanctions; a motion to dismiss; and a motion to dismiss the Bench Warrant for defendant Royall Jenkins. For reasons explained below, the court denies the motion in its entirety.

         I. Background

         Movants Woods, Moten, and Peach assert that they don't possess the documents and information plaintiff seeks from them. They argue that this information is irrelevant, and that plaintiff's counsel has harassed them with “[s]ubpoenas, [p]hone calls, mailings and emails.” Doc. 169 at 10. They seek a permanent injunction to prevent plaintiff from “subpoenaing [them] and seeking testimony, records or anything pertaining to this case from [any] people other than the proper officials that were in charge of The United Nation of Islam.” Id. Also, they ask the court to issue a protective order prohibiting plaintiff from serving them with subpoenas requesting documents. And, they seek sanctions against plaintiff and her counsel. Finally, movants ask the court to dismiss the Bench Warrant issued for defendant Royall Jenkins (Docs. 101, 102) and dismiss this case.

         Plaintiff responds, asserting that she has deposed Woods, Moten, and Peach, but that they have not responded to subpoenas to produce documents plaintiff served on each movant on February 1, 2019. Movants instead filed a “Response to Deposition” (Doc. 169) on February 14, 2019-one day before their deadline to respond to the subpoenas. See Doc. 179-1; Doc. 179-2; Doc. 179-3. Plaintiff contends that movants have not satisfied the standards for granting any of the relief they request. Plaintiff also argues, because the court entered judgment in May 2018, that the motion tries to relitigate the merits of the case improperly.

         The court discusses each of the six requests made by movants in Part II, below.

         II. Analysis

         A. Motion to Quash

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs subpoenas. Specifically, Rule 45(d)(3) requires the court to quash or modify a subpoena that

(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c);
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i)-(iv). “Non-parties responding to Rule 45 subpoenas generally receive heightened protection from discovery abuses.” In re Subpoena of Justin Works, No. 18-cv-2637-DDC-TJJ, 2018 WL 6725385, at *2 (D. Kan. Dec. 21, 2018). But, “[t]he party . . . moving to quash a subpoena has the burden to demonstrate good cause and/or the privilege to be protected.” Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, No. 99-2489-CM, 2001 WL 311196, at *2 (D. Kan. Mar. 7, 2001) (citing Sentry Ins. v. Shivers, 164 F.R.D. 255, 256 (D. Kan. 1996)).

         Also, our court consistently has applied the following standard when deciding motions to quash:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) requires that all motions for Rule 26(c) protective orders “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action.” The Court requires Rule 26 motions to “‘describe with sufficient particularity the parties' efforts to resolve th[e] dispute' and show that the parties in good faith conversed, conferred, compared views, consulted and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.