ORDER

THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

This case came on for settlement conference on September 8, 2014. At the conference, the undersigned dealt with Defendant's Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas and Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 48), and Defendant's Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoenas and Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 49). The same motion was filed twice, resulting in two docket entries.

Plaintiff's purpose in issuing deposition subpoenas was to insure the appearance at the settlement conference of the persons she believes are Defendant's duly elected leadership. Defendant's attorney and the other representatives of Defendant who appeared at the settlement conference deny that the persons subpoenaed do in fact represent Defendant. Regardless, the object of the subpoenas was accomplished and Defendant was not prejudiced.

Plaintiff also subpoenaed documents from Defendant to be produced at the settlement conference. Plaintiff previously requested the documents on July 31, 2014. (Doc. 49-1). Defendant did not produce documents at the settlement conference. If Plaintiff requests documents, and Defendant does not produce them, then Plaintiff should meet and confer with Defendant's lawyer pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g). If that is not successful, Plaintiff should file a motion to compel.

Now, the motion to quash the deposition subpoenas is DENIED as moot; the motion to quash the subpoena for documents is GRANTED; and Defendant's motion is otherwise DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.