Doutherd v. Montesdeoca, et al

Filing 29

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/14/2018 DENYING 27 Motion to Quash. (Hunt, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TYRONE DOUTHERD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:17-cv-2225-MCE-EFB

v.

ORDER

DORIS MARIE MONTESDEOCA; estate
of LUCILLE J. SMITH; UNITED
PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and
DOES 1-30 ,

17

Defendants.

18
This case is before the court on defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s (“UPS”) motion to

19
20

quash a subpoena served on third-party Cal-OSHA. ECF No. 1. For the reasons explained

21

below, the motion is denied.1

22

I.

23

Background
Plaintiff alleges that in August 2015, he was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven

24

by defendant Doris Montesdeoca. Compl. (ECF No. 1-1) ¶ 9. At the time of the accident,

25

plaintiff was driving a loaded transport truck and trailer owned by his employer, UPS. Id. The

26
27
28

1

The court determined that oral argument would not materially assist in the resolution of
the pending motion and the matter was ordered submitted on the briefs. See E.D. Cal. L.R.
230(g).
1

1

accident allegedly left plaintiff with significant back pain, left knee damage, pain in both

2

shoulders, and “pain and all around soreness.” Id. ¶ 15. After receiving treatment at the

3

emergency room, plaintiff was prescribed physical therapy and instructed to perform light duty

4

work for the next seven weeks. Id. After those seven weeks, he was required to return to full

5

time duty despite not having adequately recovered from his injuries. Id. Plaintiff claims that he

6

continued to experience pain, but that UPS did not permit him to seek further medical treatment

7

and instead began to harass and discriminate against him in various ways. Id. ¶ 16.

8

Plaintiff asserts claims against UPS for fraud, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and

9

failure to accommodate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Fair

10

Employment and Housing Act; violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; breach

11

of contract; and a cause of action styled as “violations of statutes.” Id. at 16. He also asserts

12

claims for fraudulent concealment, negligent interference, and breach of contract against

13

defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and a negligence claim against defendants Doris

14

Montesdeoca, the other driver involved in the accident, and the estate of Lucille Smith, the owner

15

of the car driven by Ms. Montesdeoca.

16

In April 2018, plaintiff served a subpoena on Cal-OSHA, seeking “[a]ll records reporting

17

accidents involving employees of United Parcel Freight in California from January 1, 2007, to the

18

present, including the name of the injured employee, date of injury or accident, general

19

description of the accident and type of injury.” Decl. of Susan S. Joo , Ex. A (ECF No. 26-2).

20

UPS now moves to quash the subpoena. ECF No. 27.

21

II.

22

Discussion
“On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or

23

modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to

24

comply beyond [certain] geographical limits . . . ; (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other

25

protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden.”

26

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). Further, a court may quash or modify a subpoena requiring the

27

disclosures of a trade secret or other confidential commercial information. Fed. R. Civ. P.

28

45(d)(3)(B)(i).
2

1

UPS argues that the subpoena should be quashed because it is overbroad, seeks discovery

2

that is not relevant or proportional to plaintiff’s claims, and violates the privacy interest of third-

3

parties by seeking medical information protected by HIPPA. ECF No. 26 at 5-8. But UPS has

4

not shown that it has standing to prevent non-party Cal-OSHA from complying with the

5

subpoena. As a general rule a party to a lawsuit has no standing to object to a subpoena served on

6

a non-party absent a privilege or privacy interest in the requested documents. Cal. Sportfishing

7

Prot. Alliance v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc., 299 F.R.D. 638, 643 (E.D. Cal. 2014). The custodian

8

of the records here is Cal-OSHA not UPS. None of these objections concern a privilege or

9

privacy interest held by UPS. Accordingly, UPS has no standing to assert these objections. See

10

Finley v. Pulcrano, 2008 WL 4500862, at * 1 (N.D. Cal. Oct.6, 2008) (“A party does not have

11

standing to quash a subpoena on the basis that the non-party recipient of the subpoena would be

12

subjected to an undue burden when the non-party has failed to object.”); Wells Fargo and Co. v.

13

ABD Ins., 2012 WL 6115612 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012) (“A party’s objection that a

14

subpoena to a non-party seeks irrelevant information or would impose an undue burden are not

15

grounds on which a party has standing to move to quash a subpoena when the non-party has not

16

objected”); Kremen v. Cohen, 2012 WL 2277857, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2012) (finding that

17

defendant did not have standing to withdraw subpoena based solely on ground that the subpoenas

18

violated the rights of third-parties).

19

UPS does argue that the subpoena seeks its own confidential business records. While

20

UPS has standing to assert this interest, it merely provides its conclusion that “[t]he requested

21

accident records contain [its] confidential commercial information,” without further elaboration.

22

UPS’s conclusory statement is insufficient to carry its burden of demonstrating that it has a

23

privacy interest in the requested documents. See Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429

24

(9th Cir. 1975) (“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show discovery should not be

25

allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.”).

26

Accordingly, UPS has failed to demonstrate any basis for quashing the subpoena plaintiff served

27

on Cal-OSHA.

28

/////
3

1
2

III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant UPS’s motion to quash (ECF No. 27)

3

is denied.

4

DATED: June 14, 2018.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4