The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
This matter is before me on the Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 45(c) [Doc. # 1, filed 1/30/06] (the "Motion"). The Motion, which seeks an order quashing a subpoena served in connection with a matter pending in another court, is DENIED.
Local rule of practice 7.1A, D.C.COLO.LCivR, requires that parties confer in good faith prior to filing motions, as follows:
The court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good-faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter. The moving party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the motion, the specific efforts to comply with this rule.
In this case, the efforts to confer were limited to the following:
Goodman & Wallace has attempted to call Plaintiff's attorneys at Tew Cardenas, LLP in Miami to confer prior to the filing of this Motion, but when the telephone number provided by Plaintiff's counsel was dialed, it was answered by an electronic tone assumed to be a facsimile machine.
Motion, ¶1. The Motion identifies in its certificate of service not only the law firm of Tew Cardenas, LLP, but also the identity of the particular lawyer involved in the case--Matias Dorta, Esq.
The efforts to confer reported here fall far short of what is required to satisfy the requirements of Rule 7.1A. See Hoelzel v. First Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003). In this case, I would have expected at a minimum an effort by counsel to obtain the telephone number of Mr. Dorta or the Tew Cardenas firm through Miami directory assistance, through a Martindale Hubbel listing, or by searching for the law firm on the internet. In less than one minute, I was able to determine that Tew Cardenas, LLP, has an office at the Four Seasons Tower on Brickell Avenue in Miami, Florida, with a telephone number of 305-536-1112. I also was able to obtain Mr. Dorta's resume and to determine that his direct dial telephone number is 305-539-2135. The suggestion that counsel made a reasonable, good-faith effort to confer by dialing a single telephone number and obtaining a facsimile tone, without any further effort to locate a working number and speak to opposing counsel, is absurd.
One of the principal objections to the subpoena is that it requires the witness to travel more than 100 miles to respond. The Motion also complains that the subpoena failed to afford a reasonable time for compliance and failed to include the payment of an attendance fee and mileage. These are all issues which can and should be resolved through a Rule 7.1A conference.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED for failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on the Motion set for March 8, 2006, at 8:30 a.m., is VACATED.
Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...