United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to
Quash Non-Party Subpoenas to Current and Former Employers
(Doc. 31), and Defendant's response thereto (Doc. 35).
brought this action for employment discrimination, sexual
harassment and retaliation, and seeks lost wages, benefits
and other remuneration, front pay, and compensatory damages,
including for alleged emotional distress. (Doc. 9). Defendant
denies Plaintiff's entitlement to damages and lists,
inter alia, set-off and Plaintiff's failure to mitigate
damages as affirmative defenses. (Doc. 29).
served Plaintiff with discovery requests intended to discover
other sources of income she has received since her
termination. Plaintiff listed three subsequent employers, one
of which was Big Brothers Big Sisters, Tampa, FL
(“BBBS”). However, Plaintiff provided only tax
forms and pay stubs as her documentation concerning her
engagement with BBBS. Specifically, Plaintiff has not
provided information concerning the total compensation
package she is receiving or can receive from BBBS and other
employment-related documents. Consequently, Defendant
subpoenaed this information directly from BBBS. (Doc. 35, Ex.
response to the subpoena, Plaintiff filed the instant motion
to quash the subpoena (Doc. 31), and Defendant filed a
response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion (Doc.
Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.
to Rule 45, a court may quash, modify, or specify conditions
for responding to a subpoena. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3).
Generally, a party does not have standing to seek to quash a
subpoena issued to a non-party. An exception exists where the
party demonstrates a personal right or privilege with respect
to the subject matter of the subpoena. Auto-Owners Inc.
Co. v. Se. Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 429
(M.D. Fla. 2005). The party moving to quash the subpoena has
the burden of persuading the Court that the subpoena should
be quashed. Id. It is well-settled that the
permissible scope of discovery that may be sought pursuant to
a Rule 45 non-party subpoena is the same as the scope of
discovery permitted pursuant to Rule 26(b).
Plaintiff has properly asserted a personal right in her
employment records, that personal right is outweighed in this
case by the relevance and proportionality of these records to
the needs of the case. Defendant seeks documents related to
Plaintiff's employment terms, benefits and compensation
at BBBS as well as Plaintiff's attendance records,
schedules, dates worked, time off requests, and
performance-related documents. Most of these categories of
documents sought by the subpoena are directly relevant to
Plaintiff's claim for damages, and more specifically any
set-off or mitigation of those damages. Further, Defendant
contends that other factors contributed to or caused
Plaintiffs purported emotional distress damages. For example,
according to Defendant, Plaintiff testified she is currently
seeking other employment, suggesting she is not content with
her employment at BBBS. Consequently, the documents sought in
paragraphs 8 and 9 are relevant and proportional to
Plaintiffs claim for emotional distress damages.
subpoena to BBBS is narrowly tailored to meet the specific
needs of this case and seeks information proportional to the
issues being litigated. (See Doc. 35, Ex.
Thus, the Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to
subpoena Plaintiffs records from BBBS.
after due consideration, it is ORDERED:
s Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoenas to Current and Former
Employers (Doc. 35) is DENIED. The parties are instructed, prior
to Defendant viewing the information provided by BBBS, to
confer in good faith in an effort to reach an agreement