*1 Before the Court, by way of Administrative Order 2013-05[1], are the following motions:

Based on a review of the motions, responses and the record as whole, the motions will be resolved as follows:

1. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (D.E. # 147)

On April 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel. The motion lists twenty-five “discovery items” that Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant to produce. (D.E. # 147, PageID 2095-6) Local Rule 26.1(b) governs discovery motions filed in the Western District of Tennessee. Among its requirements, LR 26.1(b) mandates that the motion to compel discovery shall “quote verbatim or attach copies of each deposition question, interrogatory, request for admission or request for production to which objection has been taken or incomplete response has been given; and include the response and the grounds assigned for the objection (if not apparent from the objection), if any.” Further parties may only file “those portions of the deposition, interrogatory, request for documents, request for admission, or response that are at issue.” (emphasis added) The purpose of these requirements is to narrow the focus of the motion to the specific requests and objections at issue so that the responding party and the court know what is at issue. In this case, the instant motion does not specifically state what interrogatories or requests for production of documents are at issue in the motion. On April 10, 2023, the undesigned entered an order on Plaintiffs’ previous motion to compel and informed Plaintiffs that “they may file a motion to compel consistent with the requirements of Local Rules 7.2 and 26.1(b)”. (D.E. # 145) Plaintiffs have failed to follow that instruction. The motion is DENIED.

2. Defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoena (D.E. # 149)

Defendant seeks an order quash a subpoena issued by Plaintiffs to Defendant. (D.E. # 149) The subpoena requests production of “ASE Certifications, Licenses for all Technicians that do Rv Auto Body Repair, Inspection reports & records for 10 years on the facuility (sic), Articles of Incorporation & Business licenses for Camping World Rv Sales, LLC.” (D.E. # 149-3, PageID 2265) Defendant argues that the subpoena is an attempt to order productions of documents that the Plaintiffs have already requested in their requests for production of documents and that the use of a subpoena in this case is an “attempt to circumvent the procedures and protections” provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. (D.E. # 149, PageID 2236) Plaintiffs do not respond to the arguments made by Defendant but instead cite the court to ten exhibits and eight cases with no explanation for why any of these exhibits or cases are responsive to the contention that the subpoena is duplicative and an attempt to circumvent Rule 34.

*2 Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(iv) requires that a subpoena be quashed or modified if a subpoena subjects a person to undue burden. The court is also required to limit the frequency or extent of discovery if the court determines that the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) A review of the Plaintiffs’ document requests attached to the motion as Exhibit B (D.E. # 149-2) indicates that Plaintiffs have requested all of the documents sought in the subpoena through previous discovery requests. Therefore the subpoena is duplicative of previous requests and is QUASHED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of May, 2023.