IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 6, 2009
D.N. AND S.N., MINORS BY AND THROUGH THEIR GUARDIANS AD LITEM ARTHUR NELSON IV AND MARIE NELSON, ARTHUR NELSON IV, AND MARIE NELSON, PLAINTIFFS
KEVIN SNYDER, GORDON WATTS, AND NORTH LONDONDERRY TOWNSHIP, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 2009, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 24) to quash subpoena, filed by non-party the Lebanon County Detective Bureau ("LCDB"), and the investigative files provided by LCDB for the court's in camera review, and LCDB's supplemental memorandum (Doc. 41) in support of its motion to quash, wherein LCDB argues that its investigative files are not discoverable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and that they are privileged, (see id. at 2- 4), and it appearing that the court ordered defendants to file a supplemental brief in opposition to the motion (Doc. 24) to quash on or before April 30, 2009, (see Doc. 40 ¶ 2), that defendants have failed to do so as of the date of this order,*fn1 and that defendants have consequently conceded LCDB's arguments regarding the discoverability of the investigative file under Rule 26 and federal privilege law, see L.R. 7.6 (indicating that any party that fails to submit a responsive brief opposing a motion shall be deemed not to oppose the motion); D'Angio v. Borough of Nescopeck, 34 F. Supp. 2d 256, 265 (M.D. Pa. 1999) (granting defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Local Rule 7.6 because plaintiff failed to address the merits of defendant's motion in an opposition brief), and the court concluding that defendants' non-compliance with the order of court (Doc. 40) dated April 2, 2009, which explicitly required supplemental briefing on the merits of LCDB's motion (Doc. 24) to quash, constitutes a failure by defendants to defend diligently, see L.R. 83.3.1(a) (indicating that a litigant's failure to comply with an order of court may be considered "an abandonment or failure to prosecute or defend diligently"), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 24) to quash subpoena, filed by non-party LCDB, is GRANTED. The subpoena served upon LCDB, and dated September 3, 2008 (Doc. 24, Ex. A), is QUASHED.