Legaspi v. Tme Enters., Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 July 2015
• Docket Number: Docket Number: CL13-5085
• Court: Circuit Court of Virginia
• Parties: JESSICA LEGASPI, Plaintiff, v. TME ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant.

JESSICA LEGASPI, Plaintiff, v. TME ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant.

Docket Number: CL13-5085

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Fourth Judicial Circuit

July 28, 2015

OPINION AND ORDER

This action was before the Court on July 27, 2015, for a hearing on five Motions to Quash filed by Defendant TME Enterprises, Inc. ("TME"), proper notice having been given to all parties. The Motions to Quash sought to quash the subpoenas duces tecum filed by Plaintiff Jessica Legaspi ("Legaspi") on non-parties as untimely in light of the Court-entered Scheduling Order and Supplemental Scheduling Order. The issues before the Court are: (1) whether TME has standing to file the Motions to Quash; and (2) whether subpoenas duces tecum are considered "discovery" as contemplated by the Scheduling Order and Supplemental Scheduling Order such that the Scheduling Order discovery cutoff date controls the date by which the subpoenas duces tecum must be served. The Court heard arguments from counsel and took the motion under advisement in order to consider the standing issue and merits of the motions.

The parties entered into a Scheduling Order on October 29, 2014, which set the trial date for June 30, 2015, and states that "all discovery must be served sufficiently in advance of trial to allow a timely response . . . at least 30 days before trial." (Scheduling Order ¶ 2 (first emphasis added)). The Court granted a continuance of the June 30, 2015, trial date at the request of Legapsi's counsel. TME objected to the continuance and indicated it was ready to proceed with trial. The Court specifically continued only the trial date, and the Supplemental Scheduling Order entered on May 5, 2015, states, "The cut-off dates for the completion of discovery and the designation of expert witnesses are not extended beyond those contained in the original scheduling order except by agreement of counsel." (Supplemental Scheduling Order 2).

Now the Court—after considering the arguments at the July 27, 2015, hearing, reviewing the related briefs, noting the procedural history of the case, and consulting applicable authorities—GRANTS TME's Motions to Quash.

The Court finds that TME has standing pursuant to Rule 4:9(A) of the Rules of Supreme Court of Virginia to file the Motions to Quash. The Rule expressly contemplates the filing of motions to quash by "the person so required to produce, or by the party against whom such production is sought." Va. Sup. Ct. R. 4:9(A)(c)(3) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court of Virginia has interpreted the phrase "against whom such production is sought" as referring to the opposing party in the matter. Tonti v. Akbari, 262 Va. 681, 686, 553 S.E.2d 769, 771 (2001). For these reasons, the Court finds that TME—as the opposing party in this matter—has standing as a "party against whom such production is sought" to file the Motions to Quash.

The Court also finds that a subpoena duces tecum is a form of discovery contemplated by the Scheduling Order and the Supplemental Scheduling Order. Discovery includes, inter alia, "requests for production of documents, electronically stored...