*1 On February 11, 2021, defendant Esmond Natural, Inc. filed a Motion (“Motion” or “Mot.” (ECF No. 71)), along with the declaration of its counsel Andres F. Quintana (“Quintana Decl.”) and exhibits, seeking to quash the January 11, 2021, “pre-trial subpoena” served by plaintiff Global Master International Group on Vitaquest International LLC, “a supplier of nutritional supplements” to defendant Esmond Natural. (Mot. at 4). In the alternative, defendant requests a protective order. (Id. at 2). The subpoena ordered production to be made on January 22, 2021. (Mot. Quintana Decl. Ex. A). Neither the Motion nor Mr. Quintana's Declaration indicate if Vitaquest produced any documents pursuant to the subpoena.

Defendant's counsel asserts that on January 15, 2021, he requested a Local Rule 37.1/45.1 meet and confer in an email to plaintiff's counsel. (Id.. ¶ 5 & Ex. C). Plaintiff's counsel responded in an email on January 19, 2021, stating that “[i]nterference like this with a third party subpoena is highly improper. Global Master plans to seek appropriate relief from the Court.” (Id. ¶ 6 & Ex. D). Defendant's counsel responded shortly after stating that defendant intended to bring this Motion. (Id. ¶ 6 & Ex. D). He also states that he never spoke with plaintiff's counsel regarding the subject subpoena. (Id. ¶ 7).

Defendant generally argues that not only was the subpoena untimely in light of the discovery cut-off date of January 23, 2021, set by the District Judge in this action, but it is also “patently overbroad and calls for the production of documents” that are irrelevant to plaintiff's case against defendant, and also requests documents containing proprietary business information. (Id. at 8). Defendant argues that plaintiff “cannot justify why these documents are necessary for its case,” which alleges only three causes of action –– a RICO Act violation, a state fraud claim, and a state breach of warranty claim. (Id. at 9).

As discussed in this Court's February 1, 2021, Order denying plaintiffs' recent Motion to Compel discovery responses and document production, in his June 30, 2020, Order for Jury Trial (ECF No. 34), the District Judge made it clear that “[a]ll discovery shall be complete by the discovery cut-off date specified in the Scheduling Order. This is not the date by which discovery requests must be served; it is the date by which all discovery is to be completed.” (ECF No. 34 at 2 (emphasis in original)). With respect to written discovery, that discovery “shall be served sufficiently in advance of the discovery cut-off date to permit the discovering party enough time to challenge (via motion practice) responses deemed to be deficient.” (Id.). Finally, that Order also provides that “[a]ny motion challenging the adequacy of responses to discovery must be filed timely, and served and calendared sufficiently in advance of the discovery cut-off date to permit the responses to be obtained before that date, if the motion is granted.” (Id. (emphasis in original)).

*2 On February 5, 2021, just a few days after this Court issued its discovery Order, the District Judge denied plaintiffs' motion to further modify the scheduling order and again extend the discovery cut-off date so that they could “file untimely motions to compel further discovery,” and depose defendant Paul Wei and Midori Wei of Esmond Natural. (Feb. 5, 2021, Order at 1, 2-3). The District Judge specifically found that plaintiffs “failed to diligently move to compel the discovery that they seek to obtain from Defendants and failed to diligently seek amendment of the Scheduling Order.” (Id. at 2). The District Judge explained:

(Feb. 5, 2021, Order at 2-3 (citing ECF Nos. 33, 46, 47, 52) (emphasis in original)).

Here, defendant's Motion, filed on February 11, 2021, was served well after the January 23, 2021, discovery cut-off date, and not sufficiently in advance of that date to permit the subpoena to be quashed if the Motion was granted or for documents to be obtained before that date if the Motion was denied. Likewise, the hearing date, calendared for March 30, 2021, is well beyond that deadline, and just days before the scheduled trial date. Accordingly, defendant's Motion does not comply with the District Judge's Order for Jury Trial and Scheduling Order and is, therefore, untimely. As previously advised, this Court will not change, alter, or modify a deadline established by the District Judge, including the one he himself recently refused to change.

Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 71) is denied.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, plaintiff served the subject subpoena on January 11, 2021, and set the date for the production of documents for January 22, 2021 –– itself just one day prior to the discovery cut-off date of January 23, 2021. (Quintana Decl. Ex. A). The subpoena, therefore, also does not comply with the District Judge's Order for Jury Trial and Scheduling Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.