ROGER COSBEY, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court are two motions by Plaintiff (Docket # 23, 24) to quash subpoenas issued by Defendant to nonparties. The motions are both DENIED. It is well settled that "a party ordinarily lacks standing to quash a subpoena directed at a nonparty unless the party is seeking to protect a personal privilege or right." E.g., Nova Prods., Inc. v. Kisma Video, Inc., 220 F.R.D. 238, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Transcor, Inc. v. Furney Charters, Inc., 212 F.R.D. 588, 590 (D. Kan. 2003); 9A Charles Alan Wright Arthur A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2459 (1994). Plaintiff does not claim to have a personal privilege or right at stake (she complains only about the subpoenas' timeliness); thus, she lacks standing to challenge the subpoenas.
Moreover, Local Rule 37(b) requires discovery motions, such as the two before the Court, to be accompanied by a certification that the parties have conferred and attempted to resolve the matter without court intervention. Plaintiff provides no such certification for the instant motions, which is another reason for them to be denied. L.R. 37.1(c).
For both of the above reasons, Plaintiff's motions to quash (Docket # 23, 24) are hereby DENIED.