Warren v. Hilton Grand Vacations ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Allanna Warren, Case No. 2:23-cv-00988-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Hilton Grand Vacations 9 Defendant. 10 11 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s second motion to set an early neutral evaluation (ECF No. 12 65), “petition for order to enforce subpoena to produce documents, information, or objects or to 13 permit inspection of premises in a civil action” (ECF No. 75), and Defendant’s motion to quash 14 (ECF No. 83). Plaintiff moves the Court to set an early neutral evaluation (“ENE”) under Local 15 Rule 16-6. (ECF No. 65). However, Plaintiff has not alleged any claims that would qualify the 16 action for an ENE in her amended complaint. (ECF No. 61) (bringing four claims for violations 17 of NRS 41.1395, negligence and gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and 18 civil conspiracy). The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s motion. 19 Plaintiff’s subpoena petition is a subpoena she has filed on the docket directed to 20 Defendant Hilton Grand Vacations. (ECF No. 75). Defendant moved to quash that subpoena in 21 response, arguing in part that because it is a party to the action, a subpoena is improper. (ECF 22 No. 83). A Rule 45 subpoena “cannot be used to circumvent Rule 34 or the other discovery 23 rules.” McCall v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2:16-cv-01058-JAD-GWF, 2017 WL 3174914, 24 at *6 (D. Nev. July 26, 2017). Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for one 25 party to request documents from another party. A request for production of documents is the 26 proper and the primary way to obtain documents from an opposing party. See Casun Invest, A.G. 27 v. Ponder, No. 2:16-cv-02925-JCM-GWF, 2019 WL 2358390, at *4 (D. Nev. June 4, 2019) 1 || 1994) for the proposition that Rule 45 should not be allowed when it circumvents the 2 || requirements and protections of Rule 34). The Court thus denies Plaintiff's subpoena petition and 3 || grants Defendant’s motion to quash. 4 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's second motion to set an early neutral 6 || evaluation (ECF No. 65) is denied. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs petition for a subpoena (ECF No. 75) is 8 || denied. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to quash (ECF No. 83) is 10 || granted. 1] 12 DATED: February 26, 2024 13 > < | i_¥ DANIEL J. ALBREGIS 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28