IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
November 10, 2005
BERNICE KING, PLAINTIFF,
EAST ST. LOUIS SCHOOL DIST. 187, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's motion to quash subpoenas issued to multiple individuals for depositions set tomorrow, Friday, November 11, 2005. (Doc. 35). Plaintiff notes that yesterday, November 9, 2005, she filed a motion to voluntary dismiss her case without prejudice. (Doc. 34). Plaintiff contends that it would impose an undue burden and expense on the deponents, plaintiff and counsel to proceed with the depositions.*fn1
Defense counsel has informed the Court that they object to the subject motion, and do not consent to the voluntary dismissal. Defendants note that the depositions were set by mutual agreement, and defendants have already gone to the effort and expense of serving the subpoenas. Defendants also question plaintiff's standing to move to quash the subpoenas.
Insofar as defendant questions plaintiff's standing to challenge the subpoenas and depositions, because she would be "affected by the subpoena" in that she will expend time and money attending the subpoenas, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3) affords plaintiff standing.
Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal has not been granted yet, therefore the case is still pending.*fn2 The Court appreciates the defendants' position and the effort and expense already expended; however, there is a very high probability that the motion for voluntary dismissal will be granted. Conducting four depositions would necessitate even more effort and expense, in all likelihood for naught. Plaintiff might re-file her case, but at this juncture that is less of a sure bet than the Court granting the motion for voluntary dismissal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to quash (Doc. 35) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Clifford J. Proud U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE