From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BFDR v. Crosby Construction Company of Louisiana, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Oct 22, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO: 07-3115-SSV-SS (E.D. La. Oct. 22, 2010)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO: 07-3115-SSV-SS.

October 22, 2010


ORDER


BI'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Rec. doc. 671)

GRANTED

The defendant, Baltimore Industries, Inc. ("BI"), seeks a protective order. On September 16, 2010, the plaintiff, Bona Fide Demolition and Recovery, LLC ("BFDR"), caused a subpoena to be issued from the Western District of New York to M T Bank in Buffalo, New York. The subpoena form employed by BFDR is for "Subpoena to Appear and Testify at a Hearing or Trial in a Civil Action." Rec. doc. 671 (Exhibit A). The subpoena sought M T Bank's appearance at the office of counsel for BFDR in New Orleans on October 15, 2010 with documents. M T Bank, a non-party, cannot be compelled to appear for a deposition in New Orleans. The subpoena is defective. The protective order must be granted and the subpoena quashed.

There is a separate form (AO 88B) for subpoenas to produce documents, information, or objects or to permit inspection of premises in a civil action. Presumably BFDR intended to use this form, as its transmittal letter to M T Bank stated that the "records [are] due on October 16, 2010." Rec. doc. 671 (Exhibit A).

In order to avoid further argument over the scope of the subpoena, it will be considered. BFDR seeks the records of an account issued to the defendant, Baltimore Industries, Inc. ("BI"), for the period from August 1, 2005 through the present. BI contends it should be limited to November 21, 2006 through January 13, 2007. BI contends this was the duration of its involvement with Crosby. Any future subpoena shall be restricted to the period from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007.

BI contends that the bank records should be subject to a confidentiality order. If the parties cannot agree on the form of a confidentiality order, then BFDR and BI shall submit separate orders within fourteen (14) calendar days of the entry of this order. One order will be entered.

IT IS ORDERED that BI's second motion for protective order (Rec. doc. 671) is GRANTED as provided herein.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of October, 2010.


Summaries of

BFDR v. Crosby Construction Company of Louisiana, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Oct 22, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO: 07-3115-SSV-SS (E.D. La. Oct. 22, 2010)
Case details for

BFDR v. Crosby Construction Company of Louisiana, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BONA FIDE DEMOLITION AND RECOVERY, LLC v. CROSBY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Oct 22, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO: 07-3115-SSV-SS (E.D. La. Oct. 22, 2010)

Citing Cases

Verdin v. Fed. Emergency Managed Agency

Further, although the Fifth Circuit has not ruled on the issue, the weight of authority suggests that motions…

Terrase v. Robicheaux

A motion to strike is not among the motions expressly excluded from direct ruling by a magistrate judge…