Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01795/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01795-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert and Linda Mason, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

American Family Mutual Insurance

Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 04-1795-PCT-ECV

ORDER

Non-party Jim Burton of Jim Burton Realty, Inc. has filed a Motion to Quash

Subpoena (Doc. #31) in which he objects to the Subpoena Duces Tecum served upon him

by Defendant's counsel. Mr. Burton contends that his fiduciary duty to his clients, the

Plaintiffs, prevents him from disclosing the requested documents. He further contends that

because he is more than 100 miles from the subpoena site, the subpoena must be quashed.

As Defendant argues in its Response (Doc. #32), there is no recognized privilege

between a real estate agent and his client, see A.R.S. § 12-2231, and Plaintiff has cited no

authority establishing the existence of such a privilege. Regarding Mr. Burton's location,

Defendant points out that the subpoena does not require Mr. Burton to personally appear,

only to produce documents. As a result, the 100 mile restriction in Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply. For these reasons, the motion to quash

will be denied.

Case 3:04-cv-01795-ECV Document 33 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That the Motion to Quash Subpoena (Doc. #31) filed by non-party Jim Burton of Jim

Burton Realty, Inc. is denied.

DATED this 18th day of April, 2006.

Case 3:04-cv-01795-ECV Document 33 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 2