Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_19-cv-04018/USCOURTS-arwd-4_19-cv-04018-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

SAMANTHA EDWARDS, Individually, and as 

SPECIAL ADMINISTRATRIX of the ESTATE

of WILLIAM BOBBY WRAY EDWARDS, Deceased,

and ARLEIGH GRAYCE EDWARDS, Deceased; and as

PARENT and NEXT FRIEND for Peyton Hale, a Minor PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:19-cv-4018

ERIC JAMES CORNELL THOMAS

and MCELROY TRUCK LINES, INC. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoena and Notices of Deposition and 

Request for Protective Order. (ECF No. 57).

On December 16, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery in this case pending 

the resolution of a parallel criminal matter against Defendant Thomas. On January 31, 2020, the 

Court denied that motion without prejudice, largely because Defendants had not shown that 

Defendant Thomas had been indicted and, thus, the Court could not conclude that he faced a 

currently pending criminal case. 

On February 6, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to reconsider that ruling, stating that 

Thomas has been charged with misdemeanor offenses and, thus, no charging instruments are likely 

to issue. Defendants support their motion with additional evidence, including the docket sheet 

from Defendant Thomas’ ongoing criminal case, to show that a parallel criminal case is indeed

pending against him. As of the date of this order, Defendants’ motion to reconsider is not yet ripe 

for consideration and has not been ruled on.

On February 9, 2020, Defendants filed the instant motion to quash. They indicate that on 

Case 4:19-cv-04018-SOH Document 59 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
2

February 4 and 6, 2020, Plaintiff provided notices of deposition to Defendant Thomas and to 

corporate representatives for Defendant McElroy. These notices of deposition command the 

recipients to appear for depositions on February 11, 2020, in Cuba, Alabama, and on February 12, 

2020, in Natchez, Mississippi. The deposition notices also command the recipients to produce 

certain documents that Defendants contend are the subject of a presently pending motion to compel 

before this Court.

Defendants argue that if Defendant Thomas is required to testify at the deposition, he will 

have to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination due to the parallel criminal 

case against him. If this occurs, Defendant Thomas would risk a negative inference being drawn 

against him at trial by the factfinder. However, Defendants argue that their motion to reconsider 

is still pending before the Court and if it is granted, Defendant Thomas would not be required to 

participate in civil discovery until the pendency of his criminal case. Thus, Defendants ask the 

Court to quash the notice of deposition as to Thomas in order to shield him from undue prejudice 

should the Court ultimately grant the motion to reconsider. Defendants also argue that the notices 

of deposition as to the corporate representatives should also be quashed because Defendant 

McElroy’s defenses essentially rest on Defendant Thomas, because they seek production of 

materials that are currently the subject of a pending motion to compel, and because they call for 

depositions at an unsuitable location that would disrupt Defendant McElroy’s business.

The instant motion is not yet ripe for consideration, but the Court nonetheless issues this 

order. The Local Rules provide a nonmovant fourteen days to respond to any motion. Local Rule 

7.2(b). The Court closely adheres to this rule because it serves to give nonmoving parties adequate 

notice of and time to respond to motions. However, the parties have placed the Court in a position 

where it cannot wait the typical fourteen-day period before ruling. Action is needed now to avoid 

Case 4:19-cv-04018-SOH Document 59 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
3

potential prejudice to Defendants should the Court ultimately grant their motion to reconsider at a 

later date.1 

Last week, the Court continued the trial setting in this matter and lifted all pretrial 

deadlines, including the discovery deadline. Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice from her notices of 

deposition being quashed because, if Defendants’ motion to reconsider is ultimately denied, she

will have more than enough time to reset and take those depositions. On the other hand, if the 

Court denies the instant motion to quash, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration will be rendered 

moot when Defendant Thomas appears for his deposition and asserts his Fifth Amendment 

privilege, the very thing the motion to reconsider seeks to prevent. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to quash (ECF No. 57) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s 

Third Amended Notice of Deposition of 30(b)(6) Representative; Third Amended Notice of 

Deposition for Tom Spivey, Safety Director For McElroy Truck Lines, Inc.; and Amended Notice 

of Deposition for Defendant Eric James Cornell Thomas are hereby QUASHED. Moreover, to 

prevent further disputes pending the Court’s ruling on the motion to reconsider, the Court hereby 

issues a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(A), holding all 

liability-related discovery in abeyance until after the Court rules on the pending motion to 

reconsider. 

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of February, 2020.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey 

Susan O. Hickey

Chief United States District Judge

1 The parties are cautioned that this will not be a regular occurrence. Although the Local Rules authorize the Court to 

shorten a nonmovant’s response time, the Court rarely does so absent a particularly compelling showing of good cause. 

Future motions filed at the midnight hour, seeking Court action related to an event scheduled a handful of days away 

are unlikely to make this showing, and the Court would likely wait the full fourteen-day period for a response thereto.

Case 4:19-cv-04018-SOH Document 59 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>