United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
E. STROM, Senior Judge.
matter is before the Court on the unopposed motion of
defendant QuikTrip Corporation (“defendant”) to
compel non-party James Murray's (“Murray”)
compliance with a subpoena duces tecum
(“subpoena”) (Filing No. 30). On
September 29, 2016, defendant filed a brief in support of the
motion to compel along with a copy of the subpoena and
excerpts from Murray's deposition (Filing Nos.
31, 31-1, and 31-2).
case involves a dispute regarding the sale of property
located at 11105 Sapp Brothers Drive, Omaha, Nebraska
(“property”) (Filing No. 31 at 1).
Buck's, Inc. (“plaintiff”) and defendant both
engaged in negotiations with Murray for the sale of the
property (Id. at 2). On August 23, 2016, defendant
filed a notice of intent to issue the subpoena upon Murray
(Filing No. 28). On September 19, 2016, upon
agreement with plaintiff's counsel, Murray was served
with the subpoena. Filing No. 31 at 2; see
also Filing No. 31-1 at 2. The subpoena lists
the date for production as September 9, 2016 (Filing No.
31-1 at 1). On September 20, 2016, Murray gave a
deposition in this case (Filing No. 31-2 at 1).
Murray was questioned by defendant's attorney regarding
the subpoena during his deposition (Id. at 5).
During the deposition, defendant's attorney asked,
“[Y]ou wanted some time to organize [items related to
the sale of the property to QuikTrip], and you'll produce
them after you organize them?” Filing No.
31-2, 5-6. Murray responded, “I would be glad
to.” In response to a question regarding how long
Murray needed to provide the requested items, he stated,
“I know I can do it in the next week or two.”
Filing No. 31-2 at 6. Murray further agreed to let
defendant's attorney know of the progress on September
27, 2016. On September 29, 2016, defendant filed this motion
may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
is relevant to any party's claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case . . . .”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). With regard to a subpoena duces tecum,
“[a] subpoena may command: (A) production of documents,
electronically stored information, or tangible things at a
place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is
employed, or regularly transacts business . . . .”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(2). “A person responding to a
subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are
kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and
label them to correspond to the categories in demand.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(e)(1)(A). A subpoenaed party may object to a
subpoena commanding the production of documents in writing
before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or
fourteen days after service of the subpoena. Fed.R.Civ.P.
45(d)(2)(B). In addition, “A party may move to compel
discovery from a non-party under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. Gist v.
Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, No. 5:08-CV-293-KKC, 2011 WL
4055788 at *2, (M.D. Tenn. September 12, 2011). Finally, a
person who has been served, who fails to comply with the
subpoena or an order related to the subpoena without adequate
excuse may be held in contempt. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(g).
subpoena at issue here commands production of information in
Murray's possession related to the property at issue in
this litigation (Filing No. 31-1 at 1). This
includes “records pertaining to negotiations with
Buck's, Bucky's, Steve Buchanan, Investor's
Realty, QuikTrip . . . .” (Id.) The Court
finds this information relevant to claims and defenses for
the plaintiff and defendant in this matter. Accordingly, the
issuance of the subpoena was in accordance with Rule
September 19, 2016, Murray was served with the subpoena with
a date for compliance of September 9, 2016. Since the date
for compliance had lapsed at the time of service, the Court
turns to the fourteen-day time period in which Murray had to
file any written objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(d)(2)(B). Applying this rule and the calculation of time
under Rule 6(a)(1), Murray's time for filing a written
objection expired on October 3, 2016. Accordingly, the Court
will grant the defendant's motion to compel.
James Murray shall produce the information requested by the
subpoena duces tecum served on him on September 19, 2016.
materials requested by the subpoena duces tecum shall be
produced by Murray no later than Friday, October 7, 2016.