United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. COLLINS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the motion of non-party Movant
Craig Higgins to quash Plaintiff's subpoena seeking
Movant's deposition testimony, filed on February 11, 2019
(Doc. 54). Plaintiff responded to the Motion on February 12,
2019 (Doc. 55), and Movant replied on February 13, 2019 (Doc.
58). Therefore, the Motion is ready for disposition. The
parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
636(c)(1) (Doc. 12). For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion to Quash Subpoena to Craig Higgins is
April 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant based on the use of
excessive force (Doc. 1). Defendant, a St. Louis Metropolitan
Police Officer, sought to place Plaintiff under arrest on
August 4, 2017 (Id. ¶ 7). Plaintiff alleges he
did not have a firearm or present any physical threat to
Defendant (Id. ¶ 10). Plaintiff further alleges
Defendant became enraged at Plaintiff, and while Plaintiff
was moving backwards, Defendant used his flashlight to strike
Plaintiff, cracking Plaintiff's jaw (Id.
¶¶ 12-13). In addition, Plaintiff alleges Defendant
further bullied him and struck him again in the cranium while
he was on the ground (Id. ¶ 14). Moreover,
Plaintiff alleges that after suit was filed, Defendant found
Plaintiff in a local establishment, identified himself as a
police officer, and threatened to “crack the
Plaintiff's jaw again” until Defendant was escorted
out of the establishment (Id. ¶ 16-17).
seeks third-party discovery, including the deposition of
Movant (see Doc. 55). Movant filed this motion to
quash, arguing the following: (1) the subpoena was not
properly served; (2) Movant's testimony is irrelevant to
the claims of this lawsuit; (3) Plaintiff's counsel seeks
Movant's deposition as pretext for early discovery in
another federal case pending in the Eastern District of
Missouri; and (4) to the extent Plaintiff seeks information
regarding the Movant's duties and discretion as a
municipal prosecutor, such information is protected under the
doctrine of prosecutorial immunity (Doc. 54).
Compliance with Local Rules
initial matter, as Plaintiff notes and the Court agrees,
Movant failed to comply with the Local Rules of this Court.
First, Local Rule 37 - 3.04, which specifically references
motions to quash depositions, mandates that Movant's
counsel include a statement in any motion relating to
discovery and disclosure that Movant's counsel has
conferred in person or by telephone with counsel in good
faith; the statement must also recite specific information
regarding those discussions or efforts. See E.D. Mo.
L.R. 37 - 3.04(A). Not only does Movant fail to include the
required statement in his Motion (see Doc. 54), but
Movant concedes no efforts to confer were made (Doc. 58 at
Therefore, the Court need not consider this Motion.
See E.D. Mo. L.R. 37 -3.04(A). Second, Local Rules
mandate that a movant must file a memorandum in support of
the motion. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 7 - 4.01. Movant's
Motion largely amounts to a speaking motion, with little case
law on some arguments and no case law on others (See
Doc. 54). The Motion could be denied summarily on these bases
alone. However, in the interests of justice and moving this
case forward, the Court will address the substance of the
scope of discovery for actions filed in federal court are set
forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). That rule
provides in relevant part:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case . . . . Information
within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in
evidence to be discoverable.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Among the factors for the Court to consider
include the importance of the issues at stake in the action,
the parties' relative access to information, and the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.
Id. In addition, Rule 45 states the Court is not
required to quash a subpoena unless it:
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical