*1 This matter is before the Court on a motion by Plaintiff West Coast Life Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) for an Order (1) quashing Defendant Wells Fargo Bank's (“Defendant”) subpoena to the New York State Transportation Authority (“NYSTA”); and (2) ordering Defendant not to issue any additional subpoenas in the above-captioned matter absent leave of Court. On May 18, 2022, Defendant issued a notice of a non-party subpoena duces tecum directed to NYSTA seeking the 2007 EZ-Pass records of certain individuals. The subpoena requested that the NYSTA produce documents by June 8, 2022.

Plaintiff seeks to quash the subpoena on timeliness grounds. Pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order, fact discovery in this case closed over two weeks prior to the subpoena being served. See ECF No. 57. Plaintiff contends that Defendant is not permitted to seek discovery outside of the discovery period set by the Scheduling Order and, therefore, the subpoena should be quashed.

In response to Plaintiff's motion, Defendant makes two arguments. First, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff lacks standing to quash the NYSTA subpoena because it cannot claim “some personal right or privilege in respect to the subject matter.” ECF No. 70 at 5. Second, Defendant contends that even if Plaintiff had standing to challenge the subpoena, Plaintiff's motion must be denied because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that “(1) [Defendant] did not act diligently in issuing the subpoena; and (2) [Plaintiff] will be prejudiced if the subpoena is not quashed.” Id. at 6. However, Defendant's arguments miss their mark.

Defendant does not dispute that it served the subpoena after the deadline for the completion of fact discovery. There is also no dispute that Defendant did not seek an extension of that discovery deadline for the purposes of serving the NYSTA subpoena. As such, Defendant's arguments fail because they ignore the threshold issue here--namely, whether Defendant has established good cause for the Court to permit Defendant's departure from the existing Scheduling Order.[1]

The Court has the fundamental authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 to make and enforce Scheduling Orders. See Eichorn v. AT&T Corp., 484 F.3d 644, 650 (3d Cir. 2007) (“Rule 16 gives the district courts wide latitude to manage discovery and other pretrial matters, and to set deadlines for amending pleadings, filing motions, and completing discovery.”). Indeed, as the Third Circuit has recognized, “[S]cheduling [O]rders are the heart of case management.” Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3d Cir. 1986). Rule 16 is clear that a Scheduling Order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

On March 29, 2022, the Court adopted and entered the parties’ joint proposed Scheduling Order in its entirety. Pursuant to that Order, fact discovery closed April 29, 2022. ECF No. 57. No party requested an extension of that date. Defendant did not serve the NYSTA subpoena until May 18, 2022. As such, it is Defendant's burden on this motion to establish that there is good cause to modify the Scheduling Order to allow the discovery Defendant seeks. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to meet its burden. In fact, Defendant's brief does not even address the question of good cause. Consequently, absent a showing of good cause to modify the Scheduling Order, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to quash. Accordingly,

*2 IT IS on this 16th day of September 2022

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to quash is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant is not to issue any additional subpoenas in this matter absent leave of Court; and it is further

ORDERED the Clerk is to terminate the motion at ECF No. 69.

--terminates ECF No. 69