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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7| PATRICIA A. RAMSEY, Case No. 2:20-cv-02207-KJD-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order Oy v. [Docket No. 16] 10] P.F. CHANG’S CHINA BISTRO, INC., 11 Defendant(s).

12 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for protective order. Docket No. 16.

13|| Defendant seeks relief with respect to a non-party subpoena, arguing that it is overbroad and should 14|| be limited to the facts gathered and documented in the claim file. See id. at 3-5.

15 The motion does not sufficiently address two threshold issues. First, Defendant is seeking 16|| a protective order from a subpoena served on a non-party, but the governing rule appears 17|| inapplicable on its face to such a request. See Fed. R. Civ. 26(c)(1) (“A party or any person from 18|| 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).

22 Accordingly, the motion for protective order is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed 23|| request for relief must include robust discussion on the issues identified above.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: April 14, 2021 .

Nancy J. Koppe 27 United States Magistrate Judge