Earl Robert Velger v. DARWIN CARR,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN EARL ROBERT VELGER, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2010-42 v. DARWIN CARR, individually and as trustee for the LIVE BY FAITH IRREVOCABLE TRUST, Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Earl Robert Velger’s motion to quash the subpoena issued upon Robert Brady for his deposition testimony on June 22, 2011 at 2:30 p.m. Velger moves to quash the subpoena alleging that the deposition was unilaterally noticed, and that Brady’s counsel is currently off island and advised him that he, Brady’s counsel, “will be required to discuss this matter with his client prior to providing any testimony in connection with these proceedings.” “Ordinarily, only the non-parties who were served with subpoenas may move to have them quashed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3)(A) .” “An exception exists, however, 1 2 A court must modify or quash a subpoena that: (1) fails 1 to allow a reasonable time to comply;(2) requires a nonparty to travel more than 100 miles from his residence, place of employment or where the person regularly tra …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_10-cv-00042/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_10-cv-00042-3.pdf
SHA-256 04942db756b316e7d7c89a32f892a854427d07ad1c0bf4531cbb85ed12eff6f4
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-04942db756b3
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN EARL ROBERT VELGER, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2010-42 v. DARWIN CARR, individually and as trustee for the LIVE BY FAITH IRREVOCABLE TRUST, Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Earl Robert Velger’s motion to quash the subpoena issued upon Robert Brady for his deposition testimony on June 22, 2011 at 2:30 p.m. Velger moves to quash the subpoena alleging that the deposition was unilaterally noticed, and that Brady’s counsel is currently off island and advised him that he, Brady’s counsel, “will be required to discuss this matter with his client prior to providing any testimony in connection with these proceedings.” “Ordinarily, only the non-parties who were served with subpoenas may move to have them quashed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3)(A) .” “An exception exists, however, 1 2 A court must modify or quash a subpoena that: (1) fails 1 to allow a reasonable time to comply;(2) requires a nonparty to travel more than 100 miles from his residence, place of employment or where the person regularly transacts business; (3) requires the disclosure of privileged or protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (4)subjects a person to undue burden. Davis v. General Accident Insurance Company of America, 2 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5344, at *6 (E.D. Pa. April 20, Case: 3:10-cv-00042-CVG-RM Document #: 112 Filed: 06/21/11 Page 1 of 2 Velger v. Carr, et al. Civil No. 2010-42 where a party claims ‘some personal right or privilege in respect to the subject matter of the subpoena duces tecum directed to the nonparty.’”3 Velger seeks to quash the deposition of Brady, a nonparty. In these circumstances, the Court may grant Velger’s motion only if he claims a personal right or privilege in the information or documents sought from Brady. Velger does not claim any right or privilege associated with Brady’s deposition testimony or with any documents he may have been requested to produce. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Earl Robert Velger’s motion to quash the subpoena issued to Robert Brady is DENIED. S\____________________________ RUTH MILLER United States Magistrate Judge 1999)(citations omitted). 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5344, at *6 (citing Dart 3 Industries, Inc., v. Liquid Nitrogen Processing Corporation of California, 50 F.R.D. 286, 291 (Del. 1970)). Case: 3:10-cv-00042-CVG-RM Document #: 112 Filed: 06/21/11 Page 2 of 2