Wade v. Melton et al

Filing 42

Order DENYING 40 MOTION to Quash and Objection to Defendants' Trial Subpoenas filed by Ronita Wade and WITHDRAWING 41 Order as set out. Signed by Chief Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 02/18/2021. (srd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
RONITA WADE,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-623-KD-MU
)
)
)
)
)

v.
DARRIO MELTON, both in his individual
And official capacity as Mayor of the City
Of Selma; and THE CITY OF SELMA
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Ronita Wade’s Objection and/or Motion to
Quash Subpoenas. (Doc. 40).1 The subpoenas are directed at “Tracy Lollis, FBI Mobile Office;
Joseph Simmon, FBI Mobile Office; Representative/Custodian of Records, FBI Mobile Office;
Representative/Custodian of Records, FBI Montgomery Office; Representative/Custodian of
records,

FBI

Selma

Representative/Custodian

Office;

Jim

of

Records,

Murry,

Alabama

Alabama

Attorney

Attorney

General’s

General’s

Office;

Office;

and

Representative/Custodian of Records, Examiners of Public Accounts.” (Doc. 40 at 1). The
subpoenas are not directed at Plaintiff Ronita Wade.
Generally, “a party does not have standing to quash a subpoena served on a third party
unless the party seeks to quash based on a personal right or privilege relating to the documents
being sought.” Bahrami v. Maxie Price Chevrolet-Oldsmobile Inc., 2013 WL 3800336, at *2 (N.D.
Ga. June 19, 2013) (quoting Maxwell v. Health Ctr. of Lake City, Inc., 2006 WL 1627020, at *2
(M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006) (citations omitted)). In other words, “standing exists if the party alleges

1

In light of this Order, the Court’s previous order (Doc. 41) requiring Defendants reply to Plaintiff’s motion (Doc.
40) is WITHDRAWN.

1

a ‘personal right or privilege’ with respect to the subpoenas.” Auto–Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast
Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 429 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (citing Brown v. Braddick, 595 F.2d
961, 967 (5th Cir. 1979)2). Accord Rice v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL 4596118, at *2 (M.D.
Fla. Oct. 3, 2011) (“standing exists if the party alleges a ‘personal right or privilege’ with respect
to the subpoenas.”). Here, Wade has not argued that a “personal right or privilege” exists necessary
to confer standing. Accordingly, Plaintiff Ronita Wade’s Objection and/or Motion to Quash
Subpoenas (Doc. 40) is DENIED for lack of standing.3
DONE and ORDERED this the 18th day of February 2021.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc ), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as
binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on
September 30, 1981.

3

As to Wade’s objection based on relevancy, the Court preliminarily determines (subject to reconsideration) that
information pertaining to a criminal investigation that was in process at the time Wade was allegedly terminated
because of an ongoing criminal investigation is relevant.

2