Order (CPLC motion to quash denied as moot) — Marshall v. Prestamos (Misc. No. 5:22-mc-00025) (E.D. Pa. No. 5:21-cv-04337)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · No. 5:22-mc-00025-JMG · Doc. 17 · 2024-02-21 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
__________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ALICIA MARSHALL, et al.,  
 
 
: 
 
 
 
Plaintiffs,  
 
 
: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
 
 
 
v.  
 
 
 
: 
Civil No. 5:22-mc-00025-JMG 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
: 
PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC,  
 
 
: 
 
 
 
Defendant.  
 
 
: 
__________________________________________ 
 
ORDER 
AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2024, upon consideration of Non-party Chicanos 
Por La Causa, Inc.’s (“CPLC”) Motion to Quash (ECF No. 1), Plaintiffs’ Response (ECF No. 6), 
CPLC’s Reply (ECF No. 9), Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel CPLC’s Response to Plaintiffs’ 
Subpoena (ECF No. 7), CPLC’s Response (ECF No 10), and Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 11),  
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that CPLC’s Motion to Quash (ECF No. 1) is DENIED as 
moot.1 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this Order to Defendant Prestamos 
CDFI, LLC in related case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG.  
 
1 Plaintiffs served CPLC with the subpoena at issue two years ago. Since then, the landscape of 
this case has substantially changed; so much has changed, in fact, that many of the arguments in 
this briefing are no longer relevant. Consider, for instance, the opening sentence of Plaintiffs’ 
argument in its Response to the Motion to Quash (ECF No. 6): “CPLC argues that non-party 
discovery is premature because: (a) Prestamos’s Motion to Dismiss is pending; (b) Plaintiffs 
should first seek discovery from Prestamos; and (c) Plaintiffs’ subpoena places an undue burden 
on CPLC.” At least points (a) and (b) of that list are moot.  
 
To the extent that (c) remains a live issue, the Court encourages Plaintiffs and CPLC to confer 
again. Perhaps the more settled state of 5:21-cv-04337—following the Court’s motion to dismiss 
ruling—and since-progressed party discovery will foster cooperation in this third-party discovery 
dispute. Plaintiffs and CPLC should consider this a clean slate, but the Court will entertain 
additional motions to quash or compel as needed. Such motions should be filed in the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania and flagged as related to 5:21-cv-04337. 
 
Case 5:22-mc-00025-JMG     Document 17     Filed 02/21/24     Page 1 of 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 7) is DENIED 
as moot.2 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is DIRECTED to mark this case CLOSED.   
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ John M. Gallagher  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JOHN M. GALLAGHER 
 
  
United States District Court Judge 
 
 
 
2 See supra note 1. 
Case 5:22-mc-00025-JMG     Document 17     Filed 02/21/24     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.paed.596578.17.0.pdf

Size

151,604 bytes

SHA-256

3b42ffba413b2749f623fee4b1e564141a84cf099e5175e42badd3276e29ed83

Our copy

gov.uscourts.paed.596578.17.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com