*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 Quash Subpoena (D.E. # 163)

On June 1, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to quash Defendant's subpoena to State Farm Insurance Company. The motion states that the subpoena is burdensome, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, argumentative, costly, has nothing to do with the Plaintiffs' claims, requests information that is confidential, private, privileged, attorney-client work produce (sic), requests “competitively sensitive pricing information and Complete trade secrets” and requests the same documents from State Farm that were requested from Plaintiffs and that the subpoena is a “clear attempt to circumvent the procedures and protections afforded by” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Defendant responded in opposition to the motion (D.E. # 167) and argued that Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the subpoena and that the arguments made by Plaintiffs lack merit.

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the issuance of the subpoena. Absent a claim of privilege, a party has no standing to challenge a subpoena to a nonparty. See, Donahoo v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., 211 F.R.D. 303, 306 (N.D. Ohio 2002) citing Clayton Brokerage Co., Inc. of St. Louis v. Clement, 87 F.R.D. 569, 571 (D.C. Md. 1980) (citation omitted). The party to whom the subpoena is directed is the only party with standing to oppose it. U.S. v. Tomison, 969 F.Supp. 587, 591–592 (E.D. Cal. 1997). While Plaintiffs make conclusory statements referencing privilege, there are no factual details to support their privilege claims.

Rule 45 provides specific reasons for quashing or modifying a subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). While the motion states vaguely that the subpoenas seek duplicative information, there is no specificity as to what information is being duplicated. Further, there is no specificity as to what “trade secrets” of the Plaintiffs would be disclosed in a request for “correspondence, witness statements, property damage estimates, appraisals and approvals, emails, photographs, videos and/or any tangible items that concern State Farm's investigative file for repairs made to a camper” owned by Plaintiffs.

The motion is DENIED.

2. Defendant's Request for Relief Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (D.E. # 168)

Plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment on June 5, 2023. (D.E. # 166) On June 30, 2023, Defendant filed a response seeking an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) allowing an extension of time for it to take discovery necessary to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The declaration of Kathryn Van Namen, counsel for Defendant, states that there are outstanding discovery responses due from Plaintiffs related to whether Plaintiffs consider the alleged contract to be an oral contract, an implied contract or one comprised of one or more written documents. (D.E. # 168-1, ¶¶ 7-8) Mrs. Van Namen also declares that the outstanding responses relate to Plaintiffs' claims for negligence “including the alleged defects, flaws and improper repairs” and that there has been no expert discovery or depositions taken (D.E. # 168-1, ¶¶ 9-11) Defendant, through Mrs. Van Namen, declares that this information is necessary for its defense and for its response to the motion for summary judgment. (D.E. # 168-1, ¶¶ 13) Plaintiffs argue in response that the declaration is insufficient because it fails to state the specific items that the discovery sought would reveal and it fails to identify some basis that the information sought actually exists. (D.E. # 170)

*2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides that “if a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may ... allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery ...” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(2) In this case, Defendant's declaration provides sufficient grounds for granting the requested extension of time to respond to the pending motion for summary judgment. Further, the discovery deadline in this case (August 25, 2023) has not yet expired. The cases cited by Plaintiffs are distinguishable from the case at bar. For example, in Tatum v City and County of San Francisco, 441-F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's denial of the plaintiff's request for a continuance pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), holding that the request did not “identify the specific facts that further discovery would have revealed or explain why those facts would have precluded summary judgment.” By contrast, Defendant's declaration provides a detailed list of the remaining discovery steps, what those steps seek to obtain and how those items could create a genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, the request is GRANTED. Defendant shall have until September 8, 2023 – two weeks after the close of discovery – in which to file its response to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of June, 2023.