Ramsey v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA PATRICIA A. RAMSEY,

Case No. 2:20-cv-02207-KJD-NJK

Plaintiff(s),

Order

Oy v.

[Docket No. 16]

10] P.F. CHANG’S CHINA BISTRO, INC.,

Defendant(s).

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for protective order. Docket No. 16. Defendant seeks relief with respect to a non-party subpoena, arguing that it is overbroad and should be limited to the facts gathered and documented in the claim file. See id. at 3-5.

The motion does not sufficiently address two threshold issues. First, Defendant is seeking a protective order from a subpoena served on a non-party, but the governing rule appears inapplicable on its face to such a request. See Fed. R. Civ. 26(c)(1) (“A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order” (emphasis added)). Second, and

19] relatedly, the motion does not discuss how Defendant has standing to raise the subject arguments 20]| with respect to a subpoena to a non-party. Cf. Leal v. Target, 2015 WL 7294936, at *1 (D. Nev. 21} June 25, 2015) (collecting cases).

Accordingly, the motion for protective order is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed request for relief must include robust discussion on the issues identified above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2021 .

Nancy J. Koppe

United States Magistrate Judge