The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Nora Barry Fischer
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff‟s "Motion to Compel AALS to Produce Documents Pursuant to Subpoena Duces Tecum and to Compel Defendants to Produce Documents Pursuant to Request for Production." (Docket No. 84). The Court has considered all filings of record pertinent thereto, as well as the parties‟ arguments. (Docket No. 94). The matter is ripe for disposition. For the following reasons, Plaintiff‟s motion  is DENIED.
I.Jurisdiction Over Third Party
Plaintiff submitted a subpoena to Susan Westerberg Prager (not AALS) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (Docket No. 84-2). Accordingly, this motion, as directed to AALS, should have been brought in that district.*fn1 AALS has, however, waived this argument, (see Docket No. 86), such that the Court will exercise jurisdiction over the matter.
II.Motion to Compel Defendants
The Court now turns to the pending motion to compel the Defendants to produce documents. (Docket No. 84). The underlying document requests were made after the close of discovery, which was initially set to close on June 6, 2011. (See Docket No. 21 at ¶ 2). Plaintiff moved to extend discovery in order to "depose the authors of the AALS report for the purpose, inter alia, of inquiring as to whether those authors received any information . touching on racial discrimination in the course of their field work at the [Duquesne] law school." (Id. at ¶ 7) (emphasis added). Moreover, Plaintiff admitted that he "is not seeking any information contained in the report." (Id. at ¶ 8). Plaintiff then filed a supplemental motion to extend discovery for the purposes of compelling Defendant Pearson to produce certain documents. (Docket No. 52 at 6). Plaintiff also moved the Court to reconsider its earlier discovery order. (Docket No. 51).
In response to these motions, the Court extended discovery only "as to the discovery directed to AALS." (Docket No. 72 at 1). Thus, discovery was extended to September 12, 2011 as to AALS only. (Docket No. 72 at 1-2). As discovery was closed as to the Defendants, Plaintiff‟s motion is denied.*fn2
III.Motion to Compel Third Parties
The Court also denies Plaintiff‟s motion as to the AALS for several reasons. The Court will first review Plaintiff‟s requests, then provide its rationale for denying the motion.
Plaintiff has made seven document requests in the subpoena directed to Susan Westerberg Prager (hereinafter, Dean Prager*fn3 ). Plaintiff seeks production of:
Appendix A of the Report. Appendix B of the Report. "The ABA/AALS Report of the Joint Site Visit." "Copies of all documents and any other material provided by Dean Gormley or any other representative of the law school" provided to the AALS site team. A copy of Duquesne‟s response to the AALS report. The memorandum submitted by certain faculty members detailing intimidation by other faculty members. Certain letters addressing intimidation. (See Docket No. 84-2 at 2 for all requests).
With regard to Appendix B (Request 2), Plaintiff admits that he already has a copy of the document, and, therefore, no longer seeks production of the document through discovery. (Docket No. 84 at ¶ 11). In light of AALS‟s assertions, Plaintiff has also withdrawn Requests 6 and 7. (Id. at ¶¶ 15-16). Finally, the parties entered into a stipulation in which Defendants agreed to provide Plaintiff portions of Duquesne‟s response to the Report, such that Request 5 is moot. (See Docket Nos. 96-97). Thus, the only Requests which survive are Requests 1, 3 and 4.
The first reason the Court sees to deny Plaintiff‟s motion as to the AALS relates to service, because the subpoena was incorrectly served. A subpoena must be ...