Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Parvati Corp. v. City of Oak Forest

November 16, 2010

PARVATI CORP.
v.
CITY OF OAK FOREST ET AL



Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve than Assigned Judge

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The Court, in its discretion, grants Defendants' Corrected Motion to Quash the Subpoena directed to the law firm Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. [235] in its entirety.

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

On December 14, 2009, Plaintiff Parvati Corporation ("Parvati") filed its five-count Fourth Amended Complaint against Defendants the City of Oak Lawn ("the City"), Steve Jones, Adam Dotson, and David Newquist alleging race discrimination in preventing the sale of Parvati's hotel to Bethlehem Enterprise, Inc. ("Bethlehem") for use as a senior living facility/extended stay hotel for the predominantly African-American members of Bethlehem church. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982. Parvati also alleges an equal protection claim based on race, as well as a due process claim and a First Amendment retaliation claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Defendants' Corrected Motion to Quash the Subpoena directed to the law firm Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. ("Dowd").*fn1 For the following reasons, the Court, in its discretion, grants Defendants' motion in its entirety.

Courtroom Deputy KF

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a court shall quash or modify a subpoena if it requires disclosure of privileged information or subjects a person to undue burden. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3)(A); Northwestern Mem'l Hosp. v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 923, 935 (7th Cir. 2004). A district court also may quash or modify a subpoena if it seeks discovery that is "unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; [or] the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2). Motions to quash are within the sound discretion of the district court. See Wollenburg v. Comtech Mfg.Co., 201 F.3d 973, 977 (7th Cir. 2000).

BACKGROUND

In the August 29, 2010 subpoena at issue in this motion, Parvati requests documents reflecting communications between Dowd and the City or its representatives from 2006, 2007, or 2008 that relate to the property at issue and its zoning. More specifically, the subpoena requests that Dowd produce the following materials:

1. Any and all documents from 2006, 2007, or 2008 reflecting communications between Dowd & Dowd, Ltd, and any "officer, executive, administrator, department, committee, employee, agent and/or representative of the City of Oak Forest" relating to the real property commonly known as 4375 Frontage Road, Oak Forest, Illinois 60452 (the subject property) zoned M2 or M2;

2. Any and all documents from 2006, 2007, or 2008 reflecting communications, including but not limited to correspondence, e-mails, memoranda of oral communications and notes between any employee, attorney, representative or agent of Dowd & Dowd, and any officer, executive, administrator, department, committee, employee, agent and/or representative of the City on the other hand relating in any way to the City of Oak Forest, Illinois zoning map updated March 28, 2006;

3. Any and all documents from 2006, 2007, or 2008 reflecting communications including, but not limited to correspondence, e-mails, memoranda of oral communications, and notes, between any employee, attorney, representative or agent of Dowd & Dowd, Ltd, on the one hand, and any officer, executive, administrator, department, committee, employee, agent and/or representative of the City relating to the answer filed by Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. Defendant's City of Oak Forest Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint in Case No. 1:06-cv-01772;

4. Any and all documents from 2006, 2007, or 2008 reflecting communications, including but not limited to correspondence, e-mails, memoranda of oral communications and notes, between any employee, attorney, representative or agent of Dowd & Dowd, Ltd, on the one hand and any officer, executive, administrator, department, committee, employee, agent and/or representative of the City, on the other hand relating to the answer filed by Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. to paragraph 57 in the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.