JARRETT v. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, 14-10410. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20150204f22
Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court are Defendant Corizon Health, Inc.'s ("Corizon's") Motion to Quash Subpoena [Doc. #51] and the Michigan Department of Corrections ["MDOC"] Defendants' Motion to Quash Subpoena [Doc. #52]. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(3) provides that a subpoena must be authorized by either the Clerk of the Court or an attorney authorized to practice in this Court. Neither of the subpoenas at issue in these motions is so authorized; rather, they are both signed
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court are Defendant Corizon Health, Inc.'s ("Corizon's") Motion to Quash Subpoena [Doc. #51] and the Michigan Department of Corrections ["MDOC"] Defendants' Motion to Quash Subpoena [Doc. #52]. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(3) provides that a subpoena must be authorized by either the Clerk of the Court or an attorney authorized to practice in this Court. Neither of the subpoenas at issue in these motions is so authorized; rather, they are both signed b..
More
ORDER
R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court are Defendant Corizon Health, Inc.'s ("Corizon's") Motion to Quash Subpoena [Doc. #51] and the Michigan Department of Corrections ["MDOC"] Defendants' Motion to Quash Subpoena [Doc. #52].
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(3) provides that a subpoena must be authorized by either the Clerk of the Court or an attorney authorized to practice in this Court. Neither of the subpoenas at issue in these motions is so authorized; rather, they are both signed by the Plaintiff.
I also note since both Corizon and the MDOC are parties, Rule 45 subpoenas are not the proper vehicles for discovery.
Accordingly, the motions to quash [Doc. #51 and Doc. #52] are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
