Fullen v. The City of Lubbock et al

TONY FULLEN,
v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
Plaintiff,
No. 5:25-CV-055-H
CITY OF LUBBOCK, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendants City of Lubbock and Lubbock and Power Light (LP&L) moved to
quash a deposition notice of Keli Swan, a non-party attorney for LP&L. Dkt. No. 12.
The United States District Judge referred the parties' discovery dispute to the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for recommendation. Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiff
has since withdrawn the subpoena, so the undersigned recommends that the United States
District Judge DENY as moot the motion to quash.
1. 	Findings
Because the motion to quash involved a subpoena issued months after the close-
of-discovery deadline, the undersigned ordered the parties explain whether they agreed to
extend discovery, and ifso, to explain why they failed to notify the Court of that
agreement, as required by the original scheduling order. Dkt. No. 14; see also Dkt. No.
8. 	In response, the parties filed a joint notice asking the Court to extend their discovery
deadline to January 9, 2026. Dkt. No. 15. The parties explained a series of events by
which they agreed to delay three depositions in this case, but they never explained why
they did not comply with the Court's order requiring notification of that agreement. Id.
Case 5:25-cv-00055-H Document 22 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

Subsequently, the district judge granted the parties' motion to extend their discovery
deadline. Dkt. No. 16. Plaintiff has since notified the Court that he withdrawn the
subpoena that is the subject of the motion to quash. Dkt. No. 17.
2. 	Recommendation
Because Plaintiff has withdrawn the subpoena, the undersigned recommends that
the motion to quash be DENIED as moot.
3. 	Right to Object
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation will be served on all
parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections within
fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) (2016); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). 	To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding, conclusion,
or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
where the disputed determination is found. 	An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to
file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual
findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the
district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Dated: Janua1y ·1 5 _, 2026.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
Case 5:25-cv-00055-H Document 22 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>