Filed: Jun. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2014
Summary: ORDER LOIS BLOOM, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff commenced a prose civil action against defendants in this Court on January 27, 2014, under docket number 14 CV 650 (RRM) (LB). On April 4, 2014, the Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed plaintiffs complaint and granted her 30 days leave to file an amended complaint. 14 CV 650, ECF No. 7, M&O. On April 25, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which is under judicial review. 1 Although the Court has not he
Summary: ORDER LOIS BLOOM, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff commenced a prose civil action against defendants in this Court on January 27, 2014, under docket number 14 CV 650 (RRM) (LB). On April 4, 2014, the Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed plaintiffs complaint and granted her 30 days leave to file an amended complaint. 14 CV 650, ECF No. 7, M&O. On April 25, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which is under judicial review. 1 Although the Court has not hel..
More
ORDER
LOIS BLOOM, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff commenced a prose civil action against defendants in this Court on January 27, 2014, under docket number 14 CV 650 (RRM) (LB). On April 4, 2014, the Court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed plaintiffs complaint and granted her 30 days leave to file an amended complaint. 14 CV 650, ECF No. 7, M&O. On April 25, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which is under judicial review.1
Although the Court has not held any conferences or scheduled any discovery in 14 CV 650 (RRM) (LB), plaintiff has served a subpoena on JP Morgan Chase Bank, defendant Design at Work's bank, to obtain "statements and check images for checks both deposited and written" on defendant's account from "June 1, 2010 to March 1, 2013." ECF No. 1 at 6.2 Defendants now move to quash the subpoena under this miscellaneous docket number. ECF No. 1. More specifically, defendants request that the Court stay the production of these records pending the execution of a confidentiality agreement between the parties; ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 17-18.
"As discovery under the Federal Rules is limited in scope to that which is `relevant to any party's claim or defense,' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), the court may [ ] quash or modify a subpoena that calls for irrelevant information." GMA Accessories, Inc. v. Elec. Wonderland, Inc., 07 Civ. 3219 (PKC) (DF), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72897, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2012); see also Silano v. Wheeler, CIV NO. 3:13CV185 (JCH), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75738, at *3 (D. Conn. June 3, 2014) ("subpoenas are subject to the relevance requirements set forth in Rule 26(b)).3 The Court's April 4, 2014 Order dismissed plaintiffs complaint as it "fails to ... state a claim." M&O at 4. Unless and until the Court determines that plaintiffs amended complaint should proceed, plaintiff should not serve discovery requests.
Accordingly, defendants' instant motion to quash the subpoena is granted. JP Morgan Chase Bank shall not produce the requested records to plaintiff. If the Court finds that plaintiff's amended complaint states a claim for relief, the Court shall direct service of process on the defendants4 and plaintiff may renew her request for information after defendants respond to the complaint.
SO ORDERED.
