IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

DAWN C. FORBES PLAINTIFF VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:20-cv-00039-MPM-JMV CITY OF HORN LAKE, MISSISSIPPI and ARIANNE LINVILLE, In Her Individual Capacity, DEFENDANTS

3 22222ew1qaszqsssssssssssssssssz ORDER MODIFYING SUBPOENA

This matter is before the court upon the motion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), a non-party, to quash a subpoena deuce tecum issued to it by defendant, City of Horn Lake, on the basis that it fails to allow a reasonable time to comply.1 While it is the case that the subpoena failed to allow a reasonable time to comply following its service, the court in its discretion, under these circumstances—including the implication of the COVID-19 virus and the EEOC’s closing its office—will modify the subpoena such that it is now answerable within fourteen (14) days of today’s date.2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; Wittmann v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. CV 17-9501,

, at *1 (E.D. La. July 11, 2018) (citing Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,

(5th Cir. 2004) (“Generally, modification of a subpoena is preferable to quashing it outright.”)). ORDERED, this the 23rd day of July, 2020.

/s/ Jane M. Virden U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 The EEOC states several bases in its [19] motion to quash and corresponding memorandum. However, aside from privilege arguments, which the court has made provision for in this order, the only substantive argument for which