Kent Christensen, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Leann Renee Galliway, et al., Defendants No. CV-23-08509-PCT-KML United States District Court, D. Arizona Filed December 18, 2024 Lanham, Krissa M., United States District Judge ORDER *1 Additional filings by defendant Leann Renee Galliway and her attorney Loren Molever require the court discuss again how discovery disputes must be presented. I. Factual Background On August 21, 2024, the court issued a case management order that established the discovery dispute procedures all parties must follow. According to that order, “[t]he parties shall not file written discovery motions without leave of the Court.” (Doc. 74 at 4-5.) On November 4, 2024, defendant Leann Renee Galliway filed a motion to quash subpoenas sent to three limited liability companies. (Doc. 98.) Galliway identified herself as the “sole member of these LLCs” and argued the subpoenas would impose an undue burden on her to “work with the Oregon professionals” who were maintaining the relevant documents. (Doc. 98 at 3.) The court issued an order calling for a response to the motion to quash. That order also reminded Galliway the case management order prohibits discovery motions, noted her motion to quash violated that order, and stated “in the future, Galliway shall not file discovery-related motions such as her motion to quash.” (Doc. 100 at 2.) Importantly, the court noted the supboenas had been sent to the LLCs, but it was Galliway who filed the motion to quash. (Doc. 100 at 2 n.1.) Thus, it appeared Galliway was treating a subpoena to the LLCs as a discovery request directed to her. After receiving a response from plaintiffs, the court granted in part the motion to quash. (Doc. 104 at 3.) In that order dated November 19, 2024, the court again noted the pending motion to quash had been filed by Galliway allegedly on behalf of the LLCs. (Doc. 104 at 3.) On the merits, the court concluded the subpoenas were “improper to the extent they are demanding the LLCs create new documents.” (Doc. 104 at 4.) But “[n]arrowed to existing documents,” the subpoenas were permissible such that Galliway and the LLCs were ordered to produce responsive documents. (Doc. 104 at 4.) On December 16, 2024, Galliway filed a “Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Protective Order.” (Doc. 120.) According to that motion, plaintiffs sent Galliway interrogatories and requests for production seeking information regarding the value of the trust property. Galliway seeks leave to file a motion for protective order because she believes the information “is irrelevant” and, even if relevant, plaintiffs should not be required to produce the information until plaintiffs have “demonstrate[d] a prima facie case of liability.” (Doc. 120 at 1.) On December 17, 2024, Galliway's attorney Loren Molever, allegedly representing the LLCs, filed what he titled “objection[s]” to the subpoenas that had been discussed in the court's November 19, 2024, order. (Docs. 121, 122, 123.) It is difficult to understand what Molever was attempting to accomplish by filing these “objections.” In the “objections” the LLCs state that in responding to the subpoenas they have now produced “documents to which [they] do not object.” (Doc. 121 at 1.) But the LLCs then state they “respect[ ]” the court's November 19, 2024, order “despite not being bound by it.” (Doc. 121 at 2.) And while the LLCs claim they are not seeking reconsideration of the November 19 order, they appear to request the “burden to produce the information sought” in the subpoenas “be held in abeyance until the Plaintiffs might make out” a prima facie case of liability. (Doc. 121 at 3.) II. Analysis *2 The court's discovery dispute procedures are mandatory and Galliway cannot avoid them by reading them in an irrational manner. The procedures allow parties to file discovery-related motions with leave of the court but that language captures situations where the court grants permission to file a motion after reviewing a discovery dispute filing. Galliway apparently interprets the language as merely requiring a party file a separate “motion for leave to file” when wishing to file a discovery motion. That reading is incorrect. Galliway has been informed twice that no discovery motions are allowed. The language the court used the second time was clear: “Galliway shall not file discovery-related motions.” (Doc. 100 at 2.) Galliway is now informed for the third and final time that she may not file discovery motions nor may she file motions seeking leave to file a discovery motion. Any discovery dispute must be presented as required by the court's procedures. The motion for leave to file a protective order is denied. Nor are the three “objections” by the LLCs procedurally proper. In most circumstances, if out-of-state LLCs wish to quash or modify subpoenas issued by this court, they must file an appropriate motion in the district where compliance is required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3) (requiring motion to quash or modify be filed in “the court for the district where compliance is required”). But the present case is unique in that Galliway herself already filed a motion to quash ostensibly on behalf of the LLCs. That motion could have been summarily denied as procedurally improper. But because the parties agreed the material was directly under Galliway's control, and in the interest of expediting the production of obviously-discoverable material, the court elected to address the substance of the motion. Now that the LLCs have filed baseless and procedurally improper objections on their own behalf, the court recognizes it may have been simpler to summarily deny Galliway's motion to quash. But in any event, there is no mechanism for filing additional objections here and, at this point, the subpoenas appear to be a distraction given that Galliway has conceded the relevant documents are directly under her control. As a party, Galliway may be required to produce documents in her “possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). “Control is defined as the legal right to obtain documents upon demand.” See In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 1107 (9th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Having conceded the documents sought by the subpoenas are under her control, a request for production aimed at Galliway may be the simpler path for plaintiffs to obtain what they seek. And because Galliway already litigated and lost a motion to compel regarding those documents, there would be no basis for Galliway to avoid production at this point. Finally, Galliway and her counsel have repeatedly violated the court's orders and engaged in repetitive attempts to avoid the production of documents allegedly held by custodians on behalf of the LLCs. The court ruled those documents must be produced, yet Galliway and her counsel have failed to comply. Specifically, continued refusal to cooperate in discovery or comply with court orders may result in sanctions. Continued misconduct by Galliway risks having her pleadings struck, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), while her counsel risks imposition of monetary sanctions, 28 U.S.C. § 1927.[1] *3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Leave (Doc. 120) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Objections (Doc. 121, 122, 123) are STRICKEN. Dated this 18th day of December, 2024. Footnotes [1] In a recent filing Galliway states an extension of time was needed because of “emergency room treatment” and “she is now about to leave town for the holiday.” (Doc. 121 at 2.) Medical emergencies are a plausible basis for an extension of time. Galliway's vacation plans are not.