Jump v. Montgomery County et al

Filing 81

OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Plaintiff and Movants' Motion to Quash Subpoena 78 and Plaintiff's Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Quash as to Pegasus 80 are ALLOWED. The request to quash the Defendants' subpoena directed to Pegasus Travel Agency is WITHDRAWN. The Defendants' subpoena directed to AT&T Communications of Illinois is QUASHED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 21 August, 2015 01:50:46 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
KARI JUMP,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
SHERIFF JIM VAZZI, in his
official and individual capacity,
RICK ROBBINS, KURT ELLER,
RICK FURLONG, DOUG
WHITE, GREGORY NIMMO,
and MARY SHIPMAN, in
their individual capacities,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 13-cv-3084

OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE :
This matter come before the Court on Plaintiff Kari Jump (Jump) and
Movants Rita Holzknecht and James Jump’s Motion to Quash Subpoena’s
(d/e 78) (Motion 78) and Plaintiffs’ Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Quash
as to Pegasus (d/e 80) (Motion 80). Jump and the Movants ask this Court
in Motion 78 to quash Defendants’ subpoenas directed to Pegasus Travel
Agency and AT&T Communications of Illinois (AT&T). Motion 80 seeks to
withdraw the request to quash the subpoena directed to Pegasus Travel
Agency. Motion 80 is allowed. The request to quash the subpoena to
Page 1 of 7

Pegasus Travel Agency is withdrawn. Jump and Movant Holzknecht’s
request to quash the subpoena to AT&T is ALLOWED for the reasons set
forth below.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Kari Jump alleges employment discrimination and retaliation
claims against the Defendants in violations of her statutory and
constitutional rights, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1866; Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964; and the Illinois Human Rights Act. Second
Amended Complaint (d/e 20); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 2005e; 775 ILCS 5/1102. On July 23, 2015, the Defendants deposed Jump’s mother Movant
Holzknecht. During the deposition, Holzknecht testified that she was close
to her daughter Jump. Holzknecht testified that she spoke to Jump almost
every day. Holzknecht testified that they spoke in person or on the
telephone, “Either she [Jump] would stop by my store, stop at the house,
call me.” Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff and Movant’ Motion to Quash
Subpoenas (d/e 79) (Response), Exhibit E, Excerpt of Deposition of Rita
Holzknecht, at 15. She testified that they spoke about matters alleged in
the Complaint. See id., at 15-16. Defendants represent that Jump testified
in her deposition that she talked to her mother about the allegations in
Complaint. Response, at 4.
Page 2 of 7

On July 29, 2015, the Defendants served a subpoena on AT&T
(Subpoena). The Subpoena commanded AT&T to produce the following
documents:
Any and all records related to any services provided to Rita
Holzknecht from June 2011 to June 2012, related to phone #
[Holzknecht’s cellular telephone number], including but not
limited to any telephone calls made and received, records
detailing itemized phone calls and text messages, and billing
invoices. No appearance required, records only.
Motion, Exhibit 2, Subpoena, at 1 (cellular telephone number omitted). The
Subpoena commanded AT&T to produce the records on July 31, 2015, the
cutoff date for fact discovery in this case. See Text Order entered March 2,
2015. Defendants gave Plaintiff’s counsel twenty-four hours prior notice of
the Subpoena before serving the Subpoena on AT&T. See Motion 78, at 3.
Jump and Holzknecht move to quash the Subpoena.
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, the Defendants challenge Jump and Holzknecht’s
standing to move to quash a subpoena directed to a third party. Generally,
a party lacks standing to move to quash a subpoena directed at a third
party unless the party has a claim of privilege attached to the information
sought or unless the production of the information sought implicates a
party’s privacy interests. See Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-14, 287

Page 3 of 7

F.R.D. 513, 516 (N.D. Ind. 2012). A person needs only a minimal privacy
interest to establish standing to move to quash a subpoena. Id.1
Holzknecht and Jump have at least a minimal privacy interest in the
information sought by the Subpoena for purposes of standing. The
Subpoena asks for all of AT&T’s records about Holzknecht’s cellular
telephone service for a year. The Subpoena seeks all of Holzknecht’s
billing invoices which would include information about the services she
purchased and the payments she made. The Subpoena also seeks
information about all of the telephone numbers she called or texted.
Holzknecht has a privacy interest in such personal information. See
Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599 (1977) (individuals have a privacy
interest in personal information). Jump’s privacy interest in the information
sought may be less than Holzknecht. The Subpoena seeks information
about Jump’s telephone conversations with Holzknecht rather than all of
Jump’s telephone records. Jump, however, has a privacy interest in
personal information about her communications with her mother. Jump
and Holzknecht have sufficient privacy interests in the information sought to
establish standing for Motion 78.

1

The Court does not address any possible relationship between the privacy interests necessary for
standing under Rule 45 to the reasonable expectation of privacy standard for Fourth Amendment
analysis. See United States v. Thousand, 558 Fed. App’x 666, 669-70 (7th Cir. 2014). Neither party
argues that the Fourth Amendment standard applies.

Page 4 of 7

Jump and Holzknecht move to quash the Subpoena, in part, because
the Subpoena seeks irrelevant material and the Subpoena imposes an
undue burden on Holzknecht and Jump. The scope of material that may be
secured by Subpoena is as broad as that permitted under the discovery
rules. See Graham v. Casey’s General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 253-54
(S.D. Ind. 2002). Relevant information under the discovery rules consists
of admissible evidence or information that is reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Jump
and Holzknecht have the burden of proof on this Motion. See Malibu
Media, LLC, 287 F.R.D. at 516. In this case, the Subpoena seeks large
amounts of irrelevant information. In doing so, the Subpoena places an
undue burden on Holzknecht.
The Defendants seek Holzknecht’s telephone records to “verify
whether any phone calls to/from Plaintiff and her mother were made as
testified to by both deponents.” Response, at 5. They wish to use this
information for impeachment purposes. Id. The Subpoena, however, asks
for all of Holzknecht’s cellular phone records. Holzknecht’s records of the
services she purchased and the payments she made are totally irrelevant
to impeachment. The Subpoena seeks information on all of Holzknecht’s
calls and texts for a year. The calls and texts to persons other than Jump
Page 5 of 7

have no relevance to verifying Holzknecht’s testimony that she spoke to
Jump regularly. Furthermore, Holzknecht testified that she regularly spoke
to Jump either in person, at her shop or at her home, or on the telephone.
Thus, the number of telephone calls between Holzknecht and Jump would
not verify the regularity with which they spoke and would not impeach her
testimony.
The information sought also does not appear likely to impeach
Jump’s testimony. Jump testified in her deposition that she spoke to
Holzknecht about her claims in the Complaint; but, Holzknecht testified that
the two of them spoke on an almost daily basis. Response, at 4. Because
Holzknecht, rather than Jump, testified about the frequency of their
contacts, the telephone records have little likelihood of impeaching Jump’s
testimony either. Under these circumstances, the request is overly broad.
The breadth of the request imposes an undue burden on Holzknecht.
The Subpoena seeks detailed information about the nature of her cellular
telephone service, the cost of her service, and the history of her payments.
The Subpoena also seeks all of the telephone numbers Holzknecht had
contact with in a year. All of the information about her service and
payments and all of the telephone numbers contacted except Jump’s are
totally irrelevant. The Court determines in its discretion, that the forced
Page 6 of 7

disclosure of non-party Holzknecht’s irrelevant personal information in
order to secure a small amount of minimally relevant information imposes
an undue burden on Holzknecht. The Court, therefore, quashes the
Subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A)(iv).
THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Movants’ Motion to Quash Subpoena
(d/e 78) and Plaintiffs’ Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Quash as to
Pegasus (d/e 80) are ALLOWED. The request to quash the Defendants’
subpoena directed to Pegasus Travel Agency is WITHDRAWN. The
Defendants’ subpoena directed to AT&T Communications of Illinois is
QUASHED.
ENTER: August 21, 2015

s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 7 of 7