Landwer v. Corebridge Direct Insurance Services Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03471
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Charles H Landwer, No. CV-24-03471-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Corebridge Direct Insurance Services Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Based on General Order 18-19, plaintiff Charles H. Landwer requests issuance of a 16 third-party subpoena to obtain his “own Medical Information” from non-party Medical 17 Information Bureau in Massachusetts. (Doc. 34 at 3-4.) The proposed subpoena requests 18 the responsive information “be provided by electronic mail message” to Landwer’s email 19 address. (Doc. 34 at 3, 6.) 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A) allows a subpoena to require the production of 21 documents or information “within 100 miles of where” the subpoena recipient “resides, is 22 employed, or regularly transactions business.” This means “the place of compliance must 23 be a physical ‘place’ subject to ‘geographical limits’ and capable of being measured 24 according to mileage.” CSS, Inc. v. Herrington, 354 F. Supp. 3d 702, 709 (N.D. Tex. 2017); 25 see also Crews v. Tanpri Media & Arts Inc., No. CV-23-01236-PHX-JJT, 2024 WL 26 1977708, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25, 2024) (“Plaintiff’s proposed subpoenas do not list ‘a 27 place’ where the documents or electronically stored information shall be produced, but 28 rather an e-mail address.”). Because the subpoena does not identify an appropriate location || for Medical Information Bureau to produce the requested information, Landwer’s motion is denied. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum (Doc. 34) is 5|| DENIED. 6 Dated this 17th day of June, 2025. 7

9 A Ado WM. CAA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-