Shargian v. Shargian

Opinion

MINUTE ENTRY CURRAULT, M. J. JULY 11, 2023 MJSTAR: 00:16 Court Reporter: Jodi Simcox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MOSHE SHARGIAN * CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS * NO. 21-2282

YOEL SHARGIAN, ET AL. * SECTION “R” (2)

A hearing was held this date on non-party SKK Opportunity Zone Fund I, LLC’s Motion to Quash and for Protective Order (ECF No. 56). Plaintiff sought leave and timely filed a redacted Opposition Memorandum. ECF Nos. 66, 69-70. Movant sought leave and filed a Reply Memorandum. ECF Nos. 73-75. Participating were: Marie O. Riccio, Counsel for Plaintiff; and John T. Balhoff, II & Hannah Lampo Brewton, Counsel for Movant. The Court heard argument from both parties. Movant seeks to limit the scope of an examination and related discovery for a deposition that took place on June 21-22, 2023. Further, the discovery deadline in this matter has expired. As a discovery device, a subpoena must be issued within the governing discovery deadlines and is subject to all of the strictures governing discovery, including Scheduling Order deadlines.1 Discovery motions filed after expiration of the discovery deadline are untimely.2

1 9A FED. PRAC. & PROC. CIV. § 2459; Louisiana Corral Mgmt., LLC v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., No. 22-2398, 2023 WL 1074121, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan. 26, 2023). 2 Brand Servs., L.L.C. v. Irex Corp., 909 F.3d 151, 156 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Vann v. Gilbert, 482 F. App'x 876, 879 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (affirming summary judgment and finding no abuse of discretion in denying a motion to compel where the scheduling order required all discovery to be completed by a specific date and the motion was filed after that date); Curry v. Strain, 262 F. App'x 650, 652 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (finding no abuse of discretion where the district Considering the submissions, arguments of counsel and applicable law, and given that the 30(b)(6) deposition has already occurred, and the discovery deadline expired on June 15, 2023 (ECF No. 36), IT IS ORDERED that Movant’s Motion to Quash and For Protective Order (ECF No. 56) is DENIED AS MOOT. Movant may re-file same in the event that the discovery is re-opened.

rus thy CURRAULT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE