Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01278/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01278-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity - Legal Malpractice

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles W. Campbell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dirk L. Hubbard, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-1278-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant Stephen Jenkins has filed a Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment Entered

Against Stephen A. Jenkins. Dkt. #70. The parties have filed an amendment to the motion,

a response by Plaintiff (designated a “Reply”), and a reply memorandum. Dkt. ## 74, 77, 78.

Plaintiff Charles Campbell has also filed a Motion to Compel directed at D&B Legal

Services. Dkt. #76. Finally, Plaintiff Campbell has filed a Request for Time in Which to File

a Supplemental Response to New Evidence. Dkt. #79. 

A. Motion to Compel.

Plaintiff seeks to compel D&B Legal Services to respond to a subpoena served on that

entity in Mission, Kansas. Plaintiff asserts that D&B has failed to respond to the subpoena

and aks the Court to order D&B to respond and to impose sanctions. 

Service and enforcement of subpoenas is governed by Rule 45 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Rule 45(e) states that failure to respond to a subpoena “may be deemed

a contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued.” Rule 45(e) goes on to state,

however, that “[a]n adequate cause for failure to obey exists when a subpoena purports to

require a nonparty to attend or produce at a place not within the limits provided by clause (ii)

Case 2:05-cv-01278-DGC Document 80 Filed 01/19/07 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

of subparagraph (c)(3)(A).” The subpoena issued by Plaintiff falls within this last sentence.

The subpoena purported to require a Kansas entity to produce documents in Scottsdale,

Arizona. Dkt. #76, Attachment. Because such production would not be within the limits

provided by Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii), D&B has “adequate cause for failure to obey” within the

meaning of Rule 45(e). The Court therefore will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. 

B. Request for Additional Time.

Plaintiff seeks until January 27, 2007, to respond to additional evidence disclosed for

first time in Defendant Jenkins’ reply in support of his motion to set aside default judgment.

Because Defendant’s reply does attach numerous documents not disclosed with his motion,

the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff must file his supplemental response on or

before January 26, 2007. In addition to responding to the new evidence set forth in the

reply, Plaintiff should respond to the other arguments contained in Defendant Jenkins’

motion (Dkt. #70) which were not addressed in Plaintiff’s previous filing (Dkt. #77). These

include Defendant Jenkins’ arguments that service was untimely, this Court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant Jenkins, and venue

is improper. Defendant Jenkins may file a supplemental reply (which does not include new

evidence) by February 9, 2007. The Court will rule on Defendant Jenkins’ motion to set

aside default judgment (Dkt. #70) after receiving this additional briefing.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. #76) is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s Request for Time in Which to File a Supplemental Response to New

Evidence (Dkt. #79) is granted as stated above. 

DATED this 18th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01278-DGC Document 80 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 2