Clarke v. Budget Suites of America LLC N

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 25, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00422
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 KARYL CLARKE, Case No. 2:24-cv-00422-RFB-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 BUDGET SUITES OF AMERICA, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second Motion seeking an order requiring service of 11 a subpoena duces tecum on Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (sometimes “Metro”). ECF 12 No. 50. Plaintiff’s prior request for the exact same order was denied because Plaintiff seeks 13 production of documents outside the 100 mile radius of the subpoenaed party. Federal Rule of Civil 14 Procedure 45 allows for the issuance of a subpoena to produce documents but limits those subpoenas 15 to commanding production “at a place within 100 miles” of the subpoenaed non-party. Fed. R. Civ. 16 P. 45(c)(2)(A). Plaintiff’s Rule 45 subpoena commanded Metro to produce documents in Los 17 Angeles, California. ECF No. 42-2 at 1. A subpoena requiring a nonparty to produce documents at 18 a place more than one hundred miles away is invalid. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(ii) (a court must 19 quash or modify a subpoena that does not comply with Rule 45(c)); see also Europlay Cap. Advisors, 20 LLC v. Does, 323 F.R.D. 628, 629 (C.D. Cal. 2018). 21 The Court previously ordered Defendants to produce to Plaintiff all documents received in 22 response to Defendants’ subpoena issued to Metro. It is unclear if Metro has responded to 23 Defendants’ subpoena or if documents have been produced. 24 Finally, Plaintiff seeks to extend discovery providing good cause for the request, which the 25 Court is inclined to grant for a limited time and for limited purposes. ECF No. 51. Defendants were 26 contacted regarding this request, but do not appear to have responded to Plaintiff’s inquiry at the 27 time she filed her Motion seeking to extend discovery. 1 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second Motion Requesting 2 Service of a Subpoena (ECF No. 50) is DENIED. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must file a status report stating on what date 4 a response is or was required to their subpoena for documents served on Las Vegas Metropolitan 5 Police Department. If a response was received, Defendants must confirm the response was provided 6 to Plaintiff indicating the method of delivery and the date sent. If a response was not yet received, 7 Defendants may indicate the date on which a response is expected. Defendants must keep Plaintiff 8 apprised of any extension of time to respond granted to Metro. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must contact Plaintiff no later than March 10 28, 2025 advising whether an extension of discovery may be agreed upon. The parties must discuss 11 the proposed length of the extension and the purposes for which the extension may be agreed. For 12 example, an agreed upon extension may allow only service of a valid and enforceable subpoena on 13 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department by Plaintiff with a place for the documents to be returned 14 in Clark County, Nevada. Defendants’ status report regarding their subpoena to Metro must include 15 the information regarding efforts to come to agreement on an extension of discovery. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants cannot agree to an extension of discovery 17 for any purpose or if the parties cannot agree on the substance of an extension of discovery, 18 Defendants must include their opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery (ECF No. 51) 19 in the status report. In this instance, the status report must include in the body that it serves the dual 20 purpose of an opposition to the Motion to Extend Discovery. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ status report is due no later than April 4, 22 2025. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff wishes to respond to the content of the status 24 report, that response is due no later than April 11, 2025. 25 Dated this 25th day of March, 2025.