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 18, 2010

PARVATI CORP
v.
CITY OF OAK FOREST



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 the second part of the individual Defendants' motion to quash the subpoena directed at the law firm Ancel Glink.

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

STATEMENT

On September 24, 2010, the individual Defendants in this lawsuit filed a Motion to Quash the Subpoena directed to the law firm Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C. ("Ancel Glink"). On October 18, 2010, the Court granted Defendants' motion with respect to deposing a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deponent of Ancel Glink. In the October 18, 2010 minute order, the Court also directed "Defendants to file a reply brief providing the necessary information required to assert the attorney-client, common interest, or work product privileges with respect to the documents requested" and to "address Plaintiff's argument concerning the crime-fraud exception as it relates to the documents requested." For the following reasons, the Court, in its discretion, grants the second part of the individual Defendants' Motion to Quash.

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). Moreover, a district court 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 relevant third-party subpoena, Parvati requests documents that were exchanged between Ancel Glink and the City, Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. ("Dowd"), or Medard M. Narko & Associates ("Narko") reflecting communications about specific City ordinances and zoning issues. The documents requested are summarized as follows:

1. Documents from August 1, 2007 to September 30, 2007 reflecting communications between Ancel Glink and the City regarding a scrivener's error in Appendix A adopted by the City pursuant to Ordinance 2007-07-0114O;

2. Documents from August 1, 2007 to September 30, 2007 reflecting communications between Ancel Glink and Dowd regarding a scrivener's error in Appendix A adopted by the City pursuant to Ordinance 2007-07-0114O;

3. Documents reflecting communications between Ancel Glink and the City regarding whether the subject property was zoned M-1 or M-2;

4. Documents reflecting communications between Ancel Glink and the City regarding the City's failure to designate or delineate one or more properties as M-1 or M-2 under Ordinance 2836;

5. Documents from August 1, 2005 to September 30, 2005 reflecting communications between Ancel Glink and Narko regarding the City's failure to designate or delineate one or more ...


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.