United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge
for pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a
standing order of reference from United States District Judge
David C. Godbey. See Dkt. No. 102.
Samantha Carter filed a Motion to Enforce Subpoena against
Travelers Lloyd Insurance Company (“Travelers”),
a non-party who insures one or more defendants. See
Dkt. No. 224. At the Court's direction, see Dkt.
No. 226, Travelers filed a response, see Dkt. No.
238, and Ms. Carter filed a reply, see Dkt. No. 239.
reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff Samantha
Carter's Motion to Enforce Subpoena [Dkt. No. 224].
Carter issued a subpoena to Travelers in which she appears to
seek “[s]ettlement offers and/or [r]esolution
[a]ttempts through corresponden[ce] made to Samantha Carter
on Cause 3:16 CV 1554 N BN with claim number EVG5521 for
Travelers Lloyd Insurance Company, Fireman's Fund claim
00512018200 and North American Claim number EP
12000368.” See Dkt. No. 227, Ex. A.
contends that Travelers only sent her one non-responsive
document and subsequently filed a Motion to Enforce Subpoena
to compel it to fully respond. See Dkt. No. 224 at
responds by noting that Ms. Carter's request, as written,
only “seeks documents, electronically stored
information and objects regarding ‘Settlement Offers
and/or Resolution Attempts through correspondence made to
Samantha Carter on Cause No.3:16 CV 1554 BN with claim number
EVG5221 for Travelers Lloyd (sic) Insurance
Company.'” Id. at 2-3. And it contends
that it has fully responded to this request by producing the
one responsive document on the matter. This document appears
to discuss settlement negotiations between Ms. Carter and a
defendant that Travelers insures. See Dkt. No. 238,
reply, Ms. Carter reiterates that this document is not
responsive. She then refers the Court to Nationwide
E&S/Specialty's (“Nationwide”) response
to the exact same request as one example of how she believes
Travelers could and should have responded.
responded by stating that “[it] has not made any formal
offers of settlement or resolution. As such, Nationwide does
not have any documents responsive to the above-referenced
subpoena.” Dkt. No. 239, Ex. 11.
referring to Nationwide's response to her request, Ms.
Carter appears to suggest that Travelers should have
responded by clearly stating whether or not it has formally
offered her a settlement.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a party may serve a
subpoena commanding a nonparty “to whom it is directed
to ... produce designated documents, electronically stored
information, or tangible things in that person's
possession, custody, or control.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
Rule of Civil Procedure 45 ‘explicitly contemplates the
use of subpoenas in relation to non-parties' and governs
subpoenas served on a third party ... as well as motions to
quash or modify or to compel compliance with such a
subpoena.” Am. Fed'n of Musicians of the U.S.
& Canada v. SKODAM Films, LLC, 313 F.R.D. 39, 42