Case 5:08-cv-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 1 of 17 PagelD # 2627 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION U.L. COLEMAN COMPANY, LID, —_ CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-2011 SEQUOIA VENTURE NO. 2, LTD, AND A. TEAGUE PARKWAY, L.L.C. VERSUS JUDGE: 8. MAURICE HICKS, JR. BOSSIER CITY-PARISH MAG. JUDGE: HORNSBY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION, OFFICE OF PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS FOR THE CITY OF BOSSIER, AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF BOSSIER CITY THE CITY OF BOSSIER CITY AND THE BOSSIER CITY-PARISH METROPOLITAN P| IM SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER The City of Bossier City (the “City”) and the Bossier City-Parish Metropolitan Planning Commission (the “MPC”) (collectively “defendants”), have moved to quash the 27 notices of deposition and subpoenas recently issued by plaintiffs. Attached as Exhibit B in globo are notices of depositions. Attached as Exhibit B-1 is the subpoena to Sam Marsiglia, as undersigned counsel was not provided courtesy copies of the subpoenas. ‘The 27 deposition notices and subpoenas were issued to the following: 1. City and MPC officials and employees (current and former): Scott Irwin, David Montgomery, David Jones, Timothy Larkin, Jeffery Darby, James “Chubby” Knight, Don Williams, Dr. James Rogers, James Hall, Sam Marsiglia, Mark Hudson, Ken Womack, Mayor Lo Walker, George Dement, Pam Glorioso, Charles Glover, and Lynn Austin; 2. Montgomery Agency, Inc. (Councilman David Montgomery’s business); Argent Financial Group: (Councilman Scott Irwin’s former employer); 4, Third parties: Brown Builders, Inc., Aillet, Fenner, Jolly and McClelland, Inc., Wayne Brown, Doug Brown, Southern Home Builders, Inc., Sonia Peters Cassidy, Estate of Joe Roy Peters, and Dale Cassidy.Case 5:08-cv-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 2 of 17 PagelD # 2628 TABLE OF CONTENTS THE DISCOVERY DISPUTE.. LAW AND ARGUMENT... 1. Pleintfs? Counsel Has « Duty Under Fed, R. Civ. P. 45(0\(1) to Avoid ‘Undue Burden on Subpoenaed Persons Il. Plaintiffs" Actions Warrant the Mandatory Issuance of an Order Quashing Subpoenas 7 —— ee A. The Subpoenas Impose an Undue Burden B. The Subpoenas Should be Quashed as Outside the Scope of Discovery... Ce ie Siivoe Aiea Have Been Issued to Harass the Deponents .. : a IM. Defendants are Entitled to an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 10.15 CONCLUSION...s@ 5:08-cv-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 3 of 17 PagelD #: 2629 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Board of Ed. of Farmingdale Union Free School Dist. v. Farmingdale, 38 N.Y.24 397, 380 N.Y.S.2d 635. 343 N.E.2d 278 (1975: FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 93 F- (Sth Cir. 1996) Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102-03, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1798-99, 29 L.Ed.338 «ag71) . Inre Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F.Supp.24 606 (E.D. Va. 2008) ‘Smithfield Zoning v. Town of Smithfield, 907 F.2d 239, 246 (Ist Cir. 1990)... Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 2004) United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Local, 610 v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 828-29, 103 S.Ct, 3352, 3355-56, 77 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1983). Warnke v. CVS Corp., 265 F. RD. 64. (E.D. N.Y. 2010) wn Statutes 42 U.S.C. § 1983... Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b). 212,v-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 4 of 17 PagelD #: 2630 ase 5: ‘THE DISCOVERY DISPUTE ‘At the November 4, 2010 status conference in this matter, counsel for the plaintiffs suggested that the parties set aside certain weeks starting in January, 2011, for scheduling depositions. Counsel have conferred and set aside one week per month beginning January 24, 2011 through November 2011. Counsel for plaintiffs confirmed this deposition schedule by letter to all counsel, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. The letter also confirms a previously agreed upon date to confer on the witnesses to be scheduled the week of January 24, 2011. However, despite this agreement by the parties, counsel for plaintiffs unilaterally, and without prior notice or consultation whatsoever, scheduled in December, 2010, the depositions of 17 current and former employees and officials of the City and MPC (hereinafter referred to as “defendants’ employees”), a City councilman’s personal business, a City councilman’s former employer, and 10 third parties (collectively “deponents”). DATE SIGNED DATE OF NAME TIME DEPOSITION | November 17, 2010 | December 15,2010 _| Brown Builders, Inc. 8:00 am. Aillet, Fenner, Jolly and | 9:00 am. : McClelland, Inc. | ‘Wayne Brown 16:00 am. Doug Brown 11:00 a.m. Southem Home Builders, | 12:00 pm. Inc. ‘Sonia Peters Cassidy 1:00 p.m. 7 Estate of Joe Roy Peters | 2:00 p.m. _ Scott Irwin 3:00 p.m. David Montgomery 4:00 p.m,Case 5:08-cv-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 5 of 17 PagelD # 2631 [ David Jones 5:00 p.m._| [November 17, 2010 | December 16,2010 | ‘Timothy Larkin 8:00 am. Jeffrey Darby 9:00 a.m, James “Chubby” Knight | 10:00 am. Don Williams 11:00 a.m. I - Dr. James Rogers 12:00 p.m. ‘Montgomery Agency, Inc.| 1:00 p.m. ‘Argent Financial Group __[ 2:00 pn. James Hall 3.00 p.m. Sam Marsiglia 4:00 p.m. —___| Mark Hudson 5:00 p.m. ‘November 17, 2010 [December 16,2010 | Ken Womack _ 9:00 a.m. _ ‘Mayor Lo Walker 10:00 a.m. ‘November 22, 2010 | December 22, 2010 | Dale Cassidy 8:00 am. = George Dement 9:00 am. | __ Pam Glorioso 10:00 am. | Charles Glover 11:00 a.m. Lynn Austin 12:00 p.m. All of the deponents were issued subpoenas to appear at the dates and times listed above, and commanded to produce documents that are neither relevant nor likely to lead the discovery of admissible evidence, unduly burdensome to produce, and are personal and potentially offensive in nature, The subpoenas were issued concurrently with an extensive set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents directed to the City and the MPC that contains requests virtually identical to the information sought in the subpoenas, including the subpoenas directed to the defendants’ employees. See Exhibit C attached, Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, and Request for Production Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, the information sought by plaintiffs through subpoenas issued directly to the defendants’ employees is duplicative of the written discovery already issued to the City and MPC through undersigned counsel.Case §:08-cv-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 6 of 17 PagelD #: 2632 Undersigned counsel find it unsettling that the first notice of the issuance of the deposition and document subpoenas were from our own clients upon service of the subpoenas on them on Friday afternoon, November 19, 2010. The following Monday, counsel for the City called counsel for plaintiffs and objected to the issuance of subpoenas to the defendants’ employees and attempted to reach a compromise of the dispute. Counsel for the City, MPC, and the plaintiffs had a telephone conference call on. Friday, December 3, 2010, to again attempt to resolve the dispute but were unable to reach an agreement, prompting this Motion to Quash. As discussed more fully below, the subpoenas for records issued to the deponents should be quashed for several reasons.! The subpoenas pose an unnecessary and undue burden on the deponents; the requests seek information outside the scope of permitted discovery under the Federal Rules; and the personal and potentially offensive nature of the subpoena requests appear to be a vehicle for harassment of the deponents, particularly to the defendants’ employees, who not only were served with these subpoenas, but also received copies of them by mail. "Counsel for defendants have also issued subpoenas on behalf of the defendants. However, all of the subpoenas were issued to third parties; none of the subpoenas demanded appearance at depositions; and all of the subpoenas requested the third parties” project file for the Walker Place Development, records ‘that are clearly relevant to this litigation,Case 5:08-cv-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 7 of 17 PagelD #: 2633 LAW AND ARGUMENT L __ Plaintiffs’ Counsel Has A Duty Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1) to Avoid Undue Burden on Subpoenaed Persons ‘An attorney has a duty pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to not issue a subpoena for improper purposes or to impose undue burden on the recipients. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1) provides in pertinent part: A party or attomey responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction-which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees--on a party or attorney who fails to comply. [emphasis added] The 1991 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 45 makes clear that “Abuse of a subpoena is an actionable tort, Board of Ed. of Farmingdale Union Free School Dist. v. Farmingdale, 38 N.Y.2d 397, 380 N.Y.S.2d 635. 343 N.E.2d 278 (1975), and the duty of the attorney to the non-party is also embodied in Mode! Rule of Professional Conduct 442 The Notes further state that “the liability of the attorney is correlative to the expanded power of the attorney to issue subpoenas.” The liability may include the cost of fees to collect attorneys’ fees owed as a result of a breach of this duty. Id. IL Plaintiffs’ Actions Warrant the Mandatory Issuance of an Order Quashing Subpoenas A. The Subpoenas Impose an Undue Burden All 27 subpoenas ask for the same documents, with only slight variations depending upon the deponent served, Exhibit A to the subpoena issued to Mayor Lo ‘Walker and City employee Ken Womack is copied below:Case 5:08-cv-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 8 of 17 Pagel #: 2634 EXEDBITA, + “Any and all emails, text messages, elootonio trmamissions of any Kind, intemal ‘memorandums, correspondence, or documents of any Kind which relate in exy-way to ny business activity from 2002 to the presen ime that you hevo with: = Any member of the City Council of Bossier City irom 2002 to the present {nchiding but not limited to:, Scott Irwin, David Montgomery, David Jones, ‘Tis Laukin, Jef Darby, James “Chubby” Knight, Don Williams, and former Comeiiman Dr, James Rogers; + Montgomery Agenoy, Ines + Argent Financial Group; + Any member of the Metropolitan Plaming Commission of Bossier City from 2002 tothe present or any business thatthe individnal members own or havo a direct or indiceot isterot in; 1+ Any employee of the City of Bossier City fom 2002 tothe present = ‘Any businesses owned by any member of he City Council for the City of ‘Bonsier City or by any business any member ofthe ity Council has a direct of indirect interest in or my Iusinese Where any member of the City Coimeil forthe City of Bossier City was employed from 2002 to the present; * Brown Builder, Ine, or eny business that they own or have a direct or indirect interest in * Southem Home Builders, Inc, or any business'that they own or have e direst oc indirect interest ix + Wayne Brown, or any busines that be owms or has a ditect or indirect interest + Doug Brows, or any busines thet he owne or asa director indirect interest in, ‘Sonya Peters Cassidy, or any business that she owas or has a director indirect interest in; + Joe Roy Peters, or any business that he owned or had a direct or indirect interest i; + Aille, Fetes, Jolly and MoCiellend, Ido, or any business that the officers, ‘rectors or mersbere ofthe firm own or have s direst or indirect interest fn; + Rivor Blut Development Compeny. i Any and a] emails tout messages, electronic trusmissions of say kind, intemal ‘memorandums, cuespondenoe, or documents of any kind which relate in eny way to i muy mocetary payments and/or any benefits of any kind fiom 2002 to the present ‘provided by you or by aay business that you own or have « direct or indiret interest into! Any member of the City Connell of Bossier City ftom 2002 to the present {including but not limited to: ‘Scott rwin, David Montgomery, Davi Jones, ‘Tim Larkin, Teff Darby, Tames “Chubby” Knight, Don Williems, and formez Conneilmen Dr, Temes Rogers; + Montgomery Agency, In. © Axgeat Financial Group;2 5:08-cv-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 9 of 17 PagelD #: 2635 + Any motaber of the Metropolites Flaming Commission of Bossier City drom 12002 tothe preset or my business tat the individual members own or bave a direct or indirect interest in, + ‘Any employepot the City of Bossier City ftom 2002 tothe presents + ‘Any businesses owned by any member of the City Council for the City of ‘Borser Gity or by any business ny mexber of the City Council has diet or indirect interest in or any businesses where any member of the Gity Council forthe City of Bossier City war employed ftom 2002 tothe preseat; + Brown Builders, In, or any business that they own or have & direot or fndiect interest i * Southem Home Builders, Inc, or any business the they own or have a dest (or indirea interest in, + Wayne Brows, er any business that he owns or has a director indirect interst fn: + Doug Browa, or sxy business that he owns or hus a dizect or indirect intarest ix, + Sonya Peters Cassidy, or eny busines Gat che owas or has a direct orindireot interest » Joe Roy Peters, or any business that he owned or had a direct or indirect interest ns, ‘© Aille, Feuer, Jolly and MoCielland, ie. or any business thatthe officers, Girectors or members ofthe fia own or have a director indirect interest in, River Bluff Devolopment Company. : + “Any and all exails, text messages, electronic transmissions of any kind, intemal ‘memorandums, comvepondence, or documents of any kind which relato im any Way to monetary payments and/or eny benefits of say kind ftom 2002 to te preseat paid to ‘you or any business that you own or have director indirect interest in by: ‘© Any member of the City Council of Bossier City from 2002 to the present including but not Emited to: Scott win, David Montgomery, David Jones, ‘Tim Larkin, Jel Darby, Janse “Cubby” Knight, Don Williams, and former Comncilman Dr. Jemes Rogers; + Movigomery Agency, Ino = Argent Finacial Group; + ‘Any member of the Metropolitan Planing Commission of Bossiee City from 2002 to the present or aay busines thatthe individual members own or have a Sect or indict interest in; Any employee of th City of Bossier City from 2002 to the present; + “Any businesses owned by any member of the City Council for the City of ‘Bossier City or by any business any member of the City Council has « dzect cor indirect interest in ox any businesses where any member of the City Council {or the City of Bossier City was employed ftom 2002 to the present, + Brown Builders, Ino, or any business thet they own or have & direct or fndiect interest ns + Souther Home Builds, In., or my busines thet they own or have a direct i or indirect interest in;Case 5:08-cv-02011-SMH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 10 of 17 PagelD #: 2636 + “Wayne Brown, or any business thet he owned or had a direst or indirect interest + Doug Brown, or any business that he owns or has a direct or indieot interest ix + Sonya Peters Cassidy, cr any busines tht she owns or has a director indirect ‘terest in; Toe Roy Peters, or any busines that he owas ot as a director indirect inteost ia; - + ‘Ale, Feaner, Jolly and MeClelind, Ine. or any business that the officers, ‘rectors ot menxizers ofthe fim own or have a direct ar indirect interest in * River Bluff Development Company. + Any and all emails, text messages, clectonio traaemissions of any King, intemal ‘momorandums, correspondence, of dactments of any ind which relate in any way to ‘he payment of campaign contioutions to: + Any momber of the City Comeil of Bossier City from 2002 to the present {noluding bet not limited to: Scott win, David Montgomery, David Jones, ‘Tim Larkin, James “Chubby” Knight, Jeff Darby, Don Wiliams, and former Councilmen Dr. Fames Rogers; + Mayor George DomestCase 5:08-cv-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 11 of 17 PageiO # 2637 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(@) provides “On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that... subjects @ person to undue burden.” [Emphasis added]. A subpoena imposes an undue burden on a party when a subpoena is overbroad. Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066, 1071-72 (9" Cir. 2004). In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, $50 ¥ Supp.24 606 (ED. Va. 2008), the court found a subpoena duces tecum seeking “all” emails of non-party witnesses for a six week period was overbroad, and thus imposed an undue burden on the witnesses, to the extent that it did not limit the documents requested to subject matter relevant to the claims or defenses in the action. Plaintiffs’ subpoenas should be similarly quashed as imposing an undue burden on the deponents. The subpoenas ask for all documents and electronic information since 2002 (including text messages and emails), on topics having no connection whatsoever to the issues in this litigation, The deponents are asked about business activity with, monetary payments 10, monetary payments from, various third parties, city councilmen, MPC members, all city employees since 2002, and even businesses of city councilmen. ‘The subpoenas even ask for documents reflecting campaign contributions to the city’s elected officials. Plaintiffs’ subpoenas do not limit the documents requested to those containing subject matter relevant to the underlying action. The court in In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, determined thet six weeks of emails on irrelevant subject matter constituted an undue burden on non-party witnesses, This Court should find that 9 years of documents and electronic information on matters not even remotely related toGase 5:08-0v-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 12 of 17 PagelD # 638 the issues in the case, an undue burden requiring the subpoenes to be quashed under Fed, R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(a). B. The Subpoenas Should Be Quashed as Requesting Information Outside the Scope of Discovery The subpoenas seek irrelevant information that is not likely to lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence. The discovery process and procedures are intended to produce information “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense .. ..” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). However, information sought in discovery must be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id The 1991 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 45 make clear that “the non-party witness is subject to the same scope of discovery under this rule as that person would be as a party to whom a request is addressed pursuant to Rule 34.” [emphasis added] In Warnke v. CVS Corp., 265 F.RD. 64. ED. N.Y. 2010), an action alleging age discrimination under federal and state law, the district court quashed subpoenas duces tecum served on the former employee’s subsequent employers that sought information concerning statements the employee made as to reasons for his unemployment, types of jobs he held since his termination, fringe benefits he received at each subsequent job, and reasons he ceased working at each subsequent job. The court found this information sought by the former employer was not relevant to its mitigation defense, and was not reasonably likely to lead to relevant evidence.Case 5:08-cv-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 13 of 17 PagelD # 2639 In this action, plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring the issuance of a building permit for the Walker Place Development in the City of Bossier City, without conditioning the issuance on removing the curb cut onto the Arthur Teague Parkway. Plaintiffs have purported to allege an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of their Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process, and state law claims of inverse condemnation, detrimental reliance and tortious damage. ‘The information requested by plaintiffs in Exhibit A is not relevant to any of these claims. As illustrated by the representative subpoena above, plaintiffs do not request a single document related to the Walker Place Development or to the Arthur Teague Parkway. How could the subpoena requests below be even remotely admissible at the tial of this matter? ‘Any and all emails, text messages, electronic transmissions of any kind, internal memorandums, correspondence, or documents of any kind which relate in any way to any business activity from 2002 to the present time that you have with: tee Any and all emails, text messages, electronic transmissions of any kind, internal memorandums, correspondence, or documents of any kind which relate in any way to any monetary payments and/or any benefits of any kind from 2002 to the present provided by you or by any business that you own or have a direct or indirect interest in to: see Any and all emails, text messages, electronic transmissions of any kind, internal memorandums, correspondence, or documents of any kind which relate in any way fo monetary payments and/or any benefits of any kind from 2002 to the present paid to you or any business that you own or have a direct or indirect interest in by: tee ‘Any and all emails, text messages, electronic transmissions of any kind, internal memorandums, correspondence, or documents of any kind which relate in any way to the payment of campaign contributions to:5:08-cv-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 14 of 17 PagelD # 2640 Plaintiffs have alluded in their briefs to the Court that there may have been improper motives by defendants or possibly a conspiracy against Coleman. Are these subpoenas a fishing expedition in search of a factual basis to plead such claims? Defendants deny any such improper motive or conspiracy, and have already pointed out the significant record evidence supporting the legitimate objectives and rational basis for their decisions related to the request for a curb cut onto the limited access parkway. But whether or not this is a fishing expedition is not the issue. ‘The issue is whether the requests would lead to admissible evidence. They do not. As a matter of law, the motivation behind a land use, zoning, or other discretionary decision by a municipal body is irrelevant to the determination of whether defendants violated plaintiffs’ 14° Amendment rights. FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 93 F.3d 167 (Sth Cir. 1996) (quoting Smithfield Zoning v. Town of Smithfield, 907 F.2d 239, 246 (st Cir. 1990) Additionally plaintiffs have not and cannot allege a federal conspiracy under 42 US.C. § 1985(3). A complaint must not only allege and prove (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal protection and immunities under the laws; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Local, 610 v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 828-29, 103 8.Ct. 3352, 3355-56, 77 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1983). Some racial or other class-based, individiously discriminatory animus is an essential element of an action under 42Case 5:08-cv-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 15 of 17 PagelD #: 2641 U.S.C. §1985(3). Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102-03, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1798-99, 29 L.B4.338 (1971). [emphasis added]. The plaintiffs in this case, all entities of UL. Coleman, IIT, do not fall within any class of persons protected from discrimination under the U.S. Constitution. C. The Subpoenas Appear to Have Been Issued to Harass the Deponents The manner in which the subpoenes were issued, the number of subpoenas issued, the overbreadth of the information sought, the nature of the personal information sought, the complete lack of relevance to the issues in this litigation, and the fact that 17 of the subpoenas were issued to defendants’ officials and employees without prior notice and are duplicative of written discovery requests already issued to the City and MPC, indicate to the defendants an intent to harass the defendants and all of the deponents. Why else would a subpoena for the personal information outlined above have been issued to Councilman David Montgomery's personal business, Montgomery Agency, Inc., or to Councilman Scott Irwin’s former employer, Argent Financial Group? The depositions commanded and the information ordered to be produced are perfect examples of abuses of the subpoena power prohibited by Federal Rule 45. Il, Defendants are Entitled to An Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Rule 45(c)(1) imposes a duty upon a party issuing a subpoena to “take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena.” The court is authorized to “impose upon the party or attorney in breach of {the] duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earings and a reasonable attorney's fee.” Id. The attorneys’ fees under subdivision (c)(1) include not10 5:08-cv-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 16 of 17 PagelD #: 2642 only attomeys’ fees incurred in resisting the subpoena, but also attorneys’ fees incurred in secking to collect attorneys’ fees, loss of earings, and whatever else may reasonably accompany the sanctions application, Federal Rule 45, 1991 Advisory Committee Notes. CONCLUSION For these reasons, this Court should grant defendants’ motion to quash the subpoenas attached as Exhibit B to the motion, and to enter a protective order to prohibit further subpoenas to the deponents or to any other non-parties for the information requested in the subpoenas, and for any further inquiry to third parties on those matters, by deposition or otherwise, Defendants further request an award for their attomeys’ fees and costs in filing this motion. Respectfully submitted: s/Neil T. Erwin. Neil T. Erwin (#05371) neil.erwin@neilerwinlaw.com NEIL ERWIN LAW, LLC 415 Texas Street, Suite 101 Shreveport, Louisiana 71101 Telephone: (318) 670-4110 Fax: (225) 208-1178 ‘Special Counsel for the City of Bossier City s/Katie D. Bell Lana D. Crump (#23707) Lana.Crump@keanmiller.com Katie D, Bell (#29831) Katie Bell@keanmiller.com KEAN MILLER HAWTHORNE D’ARMOND MCCOWAN & JARMAN, LLP. Post Office Box 3513 (70821) Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825 Telephone: (225) 387-0999Case 5:08-cv-02011-SMH-MLH Document 128-4 Filed 12/03/10 Page 17 of 17 PagelD #: 2643 Fax: (225) 388-9133 Attorneys for Bossier City-Parish Metropolitan Planning Commission CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 3, 2010, a copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of record by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. s/Katie D. Bell