DONG GUN SHIN and Mi Ryung Shin, as surviving parents of Se Woong Shin, deceased; and Yu Kyung Shin, assignee of Soon M. Kwom, Plaintiffs, v. INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant CIVIL ACTION FILE No. 1:18-cv-1954-SCJ United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division Signed October 01, 2018 Counsel Yehuda Smolar, Smolar Law Offices, Yes Law Group, LLC, Atlanta, GA, Samuel Lester Tate, III, Akin & Tate, PC, Cartersville, GA, for Plaintiffs. Maren R. Cave, Myrece Rebecca Johnson, Stephen LeRoy Cotter, Lauren Woodrick, Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant. Jones, Steve C., United States District Judge ORDER *1 This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Plaintiffs. Doc. No. [20]. Plaintiffs seek to quash a subpoena, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A)(iii), served by Defendant Infinity Insurance Company on non-party Daniel Dean, Esq. Rule 45(d)(3) provides that “[o]n timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that ... requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii) (emphasis added). Section (d)(2) allows “[a] person commanded to produce documents ... [to] serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to [producing the documents]. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B) (emphasis added). If the objection involves privileged or otherwise protected materials, the Federal Rules require “[a] person withholding subpoenaed information” to “expressly make the claim” and to “describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(2)(A) (emphasis added). “Blanket assertions of privilege before a district court are usually unacceptable.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 831 F.2d 225, 226 (11th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028, 1044 n.20 (5th Cir. Unit A Feb. 1981)). The Court begins by noting that, as a prerequisite to filing any discovery dispute-related motion, the Court requires the parties to participate in a telephone conference with the undersigned. See Doc. No. [13]. Plaintiffs did not initiate such a conference before filing the instant motion. The Court also observes that Plaintiffs' motion is untimely. Defendant filed notice of service of the subpoena on June 6, 2018. See Doc. No. [12]. The subpoena gave a deadline for response of July 9, 2018. Doc. No. [12-1], p. 5. According to Rule 45(d)(2), objection to the subpoena was required either before July 9th or within fourteen days of June 6th, whichever was earlier. In this case, the latter option applies, and objections were due by June 20, 2018. Plaintiffs did not file their motion until August 15, 2018; thus, it is untimely. Furthermore, Plaintiffs only asserted a generalized objection claiming privilege. See Doc. No. [20-2]. Plaintiffs' brief in support of its motion to quash states as follows: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A)(iii) provides that the Court is required to quash or modify a subpoena that requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies. The subpoena in question in this case requests attorney client privileged communications, and requests an attorney client privileged file. Plaintiffs are entitled to have the subpoena in question quashed. *2 Id. at 1–2. That is not an excerpt from Plaintiffs' brief; that is Plaintiffs' entire brief. Local Rule 7.1 requires that “[e]very motion presented to the clerk for filing shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law which cites supporting authority.” NDGa LR 7.1(A)(1). Plaintiffs' brief contains no legal authority defining the contours of the attorney-client privilege or applying factually similar case law to the issue at hand. In addition, nothing in Plaintiffs' sixty-two-word brief provides Defendant or the Court an adequate description to allow an assessment of the privileged nature of the documents contained in the file. Nor have Plaintiffs submitted a privilege log to either the Defendant or the Court. As neither Plaintiffs nor Mr. Dean have complied with Rule 45(d)(2), the Court cannot determine whether the contents of the file sought by Defendant are protected by the attorney-client privilege. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash Subpoena is DENIED.[1] Doc. No. [20]. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of October, 2018. Footnotes [1] The Court notes Defendant's offer to limit the scope of its subpoena. Doc. No. [21], p. 6–7. Should Defendant serve a revised subpoena, and should the non-party reply according to Rule 45 with timely objections and a privilege log, and should the parties follow the instructions for a discovery-dispute conference with the Court, the Court would consider a renewed motion to quash at that time.