AGNESS MCCURRY and ETHA JONES, Plaintiffs, v. EASTMAN CREDIT UNION, Defendant 2:23-CV-61 United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, GREENEVILLE DIVISION Filed July 10, 2024 Wyrick, Cynthia R., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Defendant Eastman Credit Union has filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena [Doc. 73] and a supporting memorandum [Doc. 74] in which it asks the Court to quash a subpoena [Doc. 72] that Plaintiffs sent to Defendant's counsel. In its Motion, Defendant states that Plaintiffs sent a subpoena to counsel electronically on June 20, 2024, directing production of “[a]ll documents related to the sale of [Plaintiff Agness McCurry's] vehicle, the name of the buyer and place, amount collected, arrears [sic.], date of sale, full accounting of outstanding bills on account. All documents related to Agness credit card.” [Doc. 73, p. 1]. The subpoena further directed production on June 24, 2024, at 12:00 p.m. Id. In moving to quash the subpoena, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs may not seek discovery before the parties have conferred pursuant of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), the pro se Plaintiffs may not issue and sign their own subpoena, the subpoena was served improperly, Plaintiffs may not use a subpoena to shorten the time for Defendant to respond to a request for production, and the subpoena does not provide a reasonable time to comply. [Doc. 74]. Plaintiffs filed a Response [Doc. 78] asserting that Defendant is required to provide Plaintiffs with the requested information pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-614 (2021) and that a Rule 26(f) conference is “irrelevant” because Plaintiffs have moved to amend their Complaint.[1] [Doc. 78, p. 1, 4]. Plaintiffs further state that they intend to file suit against other defendants. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs now request that the Court issue a subpoena for the documents Plaintiffs have requested. Id. at 4. The Court first notes that matters of discovery management fall within the Court's discretion. See Suntrust Bank v. Blue Water Fiber, L.P., 210 F.R.D. 196, 199 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citing Ghandi v. Police Dep't of City of Detroit, 747 F.2d 338, 354 (6th Cir. 1984)). More specifically, a decision to quash a subpoena is “within the sound discretion of the district court.” Thomas v. City of Cleveland, 57 F. App'x 652 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Ghandi, 747 F.2d at 354). With this framework in mind, the Court will consider Plaintiffs' use of a subpoena as a discovery device, the sufficiency of the subpoena and its issuance, and Plaintiffs' request for the Court to issue a subpoena on their behalf. In the Sixth Circuit, subpoenas issued pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are considered discovery devices subject to the same deadlines as other forms of discovery. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Am. Med. Response, No. 17-CV-2725-MSN-TMP, 2019 WL 396805, *2 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 2, 2019) (citations omitted); see also Fabery v. Mid-South Ob-GYN, 2000 WL 35641544 at *1 (W.D. Tenn. May 15, 2008) (observing that subpoenas are subject to the same deadlines as other forms of discovery and cannot be used as an end run around discovery deadlines). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the parties may not seek discovery before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except when authorized by court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). In this case, the deadline for the parties to engage in a Rule 26(f) conference has been stayed by the District Court pending the outcome of a summary judgment motion. [Doc. 66]. Both parties state that they have not yet engaged in a Rule 26(f) conference, and as such, Plaintiffs may not seek discovery from Defendant without authorization. The Court will now address whether the subpoena issued by Plaintiffs complies with applicable law and then turn to whether Plaintiffs will be permitted to proceed with a subpoena at this juncture in the case. *2 As part of discovery, parties may seek the production of documents under Rule 34, and a response must be delivered within thirty days of being served with the request or within thirty days of the parties' Rule 26(f) conference “if the request was delivered under Rule 26(d)(2).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). Subpoenas may not be used to circumvent Rule 34 and reduce the amount of time a party has available to respond to a document request. See Olmstead v. Fentress Cnty., Tennessee, No. 2:16-CV-00046, 2018 WL 6198428, *4 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 28, 2018); Stokes v. Xerox Corp., No. 05-CV-71683-DT, 2006 WL 6686584, *3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 5, 2006). In this case, Plaintiffs' subpoena was filed on June 20, 2024, and directed that production of the requested documents be made on June 24, 2024, a mere four days later. In other words, Plaintiffs improperly attempted to shorten Defendant's time for responding to a discovery request from thirty days to four days. The Court next turns to the content of Plaintiffs' subpoena and the mechanism by which it was issued. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs subpoenas. The rule provides that only a clerk or attorney authorized to practice in the issuing court may sign and issue a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). A subpoena may be served by “[a]ny person who is at least 18 years old and not a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). It must be served personally, rather than electronically. See Adkisson v. Jacobs Eng'g Grp., Inc., No. 3:13-CV-505-TAV-HBG, 2018 WL 4997645, *2 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 15, 2018). Furthermore, the court “must quash or modify a subpoena that... fails to allow a reasonable time to comply.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). Because Plaintiffs are pro se litigants who are not attorneys authorized to practice in this court, and are also both parties to the lawsuit, neither was authorized to issue a subpoena or serve it on Defendant. Additionally, as noted above, the subpoena directed the subpoenaed documents to be produced within four days, which is not a reasonable timeframe. For these reasons, Defendant's Motion [Doc. 73] requesting that the subpoena issued to Eastman Credit Union be quashed is GRANTED. In response to Defendant's request to quash, Plaintiffs have asked that the Court “sua sponte issue a subpoena for production of documents that Plaintiffs requested.” [Doc. 78, p. 4]. To allow parties to engage in discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference, the Court must find good cause to permit such discovery. See Vision Films Inc. v. Does 1-20, No. 3:12-CV-643, 2013 WL 1385203, *2 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 3, 2013) (finding good cause to permit discovery before Rule 26(f) conference when plaintiff would have opportunity to identify unknown defendants). In reviewing the document requests made by Plaintiffs, the Court finds that those requested appear to be directly relevant to the claims at issue and to matters addressed in Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 69]. Moreover, the document request is narrow in scope. Additionally, the documents requested should not be burdensome for Defendant to produce. As such, the Court finds good cause to permit a subpoena to issue at this juncture for the information Plaintiffs have requested. As such, Plaintiffs' request contained in their Response [Doc. 78] for the Court to issue a subpoena for the requested documents is GRANTED in part. While the Court will not complete the subpoena for Plaintiffs, the Clerk is DIRECTED to issue to Plaintiffs a signed, but otherwise blank, subpoena. Plaintiffs may then complete the subpoena, directing it to Eastman Credit Union. Plaintiffs are hereby ADVISED that all subpoenas must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.[2] This means that a person “who is at least 18 years old and not a party” must be the one to serve the subpoena, and a copy must be delivered to the named person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). Additionally, the subpoena MUST direct that the requested documents be produced no earlier than thirty days after the subpoena is served on Defendant, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Finally, Plaintiffs shall include in the subpoena a request for only those documents which were requested in the subpoena addressed herein.[3] This Court's order should not be interpreted as a prohibition against Defendant filing a motion to quash as to any new subpoena which Plaintiffs have served upon it should Defendant conclude that the subpoena does not comply with the Order of this Court and applicable law. *3 SO ORDERED: Footnotes [1] The Court notes that Plaintiffs moved for an extension of time to file an amended complaint [Doc. 36], which was denied as moot by the District Court [Doc. 41] when Plaintiffs appealed a previous court order. [2] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requires that a subpoena include the name of the court in which the action is pending, the name of the case and the case number, and instruct the person to whom it is directed to produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or other tangible items. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A). [3] Plaintiffs may well be entitled to further discovery if Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied.