THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. et al v. HARTLEIB, No. 2:2019cv02728 - Document 104 (E.D. Pa. 2021)

Court Description: AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO QUASH (DOC. NO. 96 ) IS DENIED AS MOOT. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA (DOC. NO. 99 ) IS DENIED. PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED. FURTHER INFORMATION OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE ON 4/29/21.4/30/21 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas, )

Download PDF
THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. et al v. HARTLEIB Doc. 104 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C., et al., Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : : v. MICHAEL HARTLEIB, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION No. 19-2728 AMENDED ORDER AND NOW, on April 29, 2021, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash the Subpoena Directed to Jeffrey B. McCarron, Esquire (doc. 96) is DENIED as moot because it has been withdrawn by Defendants. See Memorandum in Support of Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to PNC Bank (doc. 100-1) at 6. 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash the Subpoena Issued to PNC Bank (doc. 99) is DENIED. The subpoena is narrowly tailored to obtain information that may have a tendency to make a fact of consequence to Defendant’s defenses more or less probable. 1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Fed. R. Evid. 401. Any information obtained pursuant to the subpoena shall be used solely for purposes of this lawsuit and limited to: (a) the parties; (b) their attorneys in this case and their attorneys’ professional, clerical, secretarial and other support personnel to the extent necessary; (c) experts or consultants retained to assist counsel in this case and who have signed a non-disclosure agreement; (d) any deponent with knowledge or awareness of the information; and (e) the Court when submitted under seal. 1 Plaintiffs argue that Defendant is improperly seeking financial information between Plaintiffs and Jeffrey Silow after January 27, 2017, because it allegedly severed ties with Mr. Silow in February 2017. See Memo. in Support of Motion at 3. Defendant is entitled to seek discovery concerning that allegation. To the extent that no financial information exists, PNC Bank can make that representation. Dockets.Justia.com 3. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED. The parties are directed to resolve all future discovery disputes professionally and without a barrage of costly and time-consuming letters and motions. To the extent that a discovery request seems improper or seeks information that may be confidential, the parties shall seek to reach a suitable resolution without public accusations of wrongdoing that serve no purpose other than to undermine confidence in the judicial process and the bar. BY THE COURT: /s/ Timothy R. Rice TIMOTHY R. RICE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.