Jump v. Montgomery County et al
Filing
98
OPINION: The Defendants' Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Order (d/e 85 )is DENIED. The Magistrate Judge's Opinion and Order Quashing the Subpoenato AT&T Communications of Illinois (d/e 81 ) is AFFIRMED. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 10/29/2015. (ME, ilcd) Added relationship to d/e 81 - Modified on 10/29/2015 (ME, ilcd).
E-FILED
Thursday, 29 October, 2015 03:34:50 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, in their
individual capacities,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 13-3084
OPINION
RICHARD MILLS, U.S. District Judge:
In an Opinion and Order [Doc. No. 81] entered on August 21, 2015,
United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins granted the Motion
of the Plaintiff and Movants Rita Holzknecht and James Jump and quashed
the subpoena directed to AT&T Communications of Illinois (“AT&T).
The Defendants appealed the Magistrate Judge’s Decision. See Doc. No.
85. As directed, the Plaintiff and Movant filed a Response [Doc. No. 88]
to the Defendants’ Brief.
I.
This is a case wherein Plaintiff Kari Jump alleges employment
discrimination and retaliation claims against the Defendants pursuant to
the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VII of the Civil Rights
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and the Illinois Human Rights Act, 735
ILCS 5/2-102(D).
Movant Rita Holzknecht is the Plaintiff’s mother. On July 29, 2015,
the Defendants served a subpoena on AT&T which 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.
Jump and Holzknecht moved to quash the subpoena.
Judge Schanzle-Haskins noted that a party generally lacks standing to
quash a subpoena directed at a third party unless a claim of privilege
attaches to the information sought or unless the production of such
information implicates a party’s privacy interests. See Malibu Media, LLC
2
v. John Does 1-14, 287 F.R.D. 513, 516 (N.D. Ind. 2012). He determined
that although the Plaintiff’s privacy interest in the information sought
might be less than Holzknecht’s, both individuals have sufficient privacy
interests to establish standing. Judge Schanzle-Haskins found that the
subpoena sought large amounts of irrelevant information and, therefore,
placed an undue burden on Holzknecht.
Holzknecht had testified she spoke to Kari Jump either in person or
on the telephone almost every day.
The magistrate judge noted that
Defendants sought Holzknecht’s telephone records for impeachment
purposes in order to determine whether the deponents had frequent
telephonic contact. He found that Holzknecht’s records of the services she
purchased and the payments she made are totally irrelevant to
impeachment. Moreover, the calls and texts to persons other than the
Plaintiff have no relevance to determining the accuracy of Holzknecht’s
testimony that she spoke to the Plaintiff regularly. Additionally, Judge
Schanzle-Haskins observed that because Holzknecht testified that she
regularly spoke to the Plaintiff either in person, at her shop or at her home
3
or on the telephone, the number of calls between Holzknecht and Jump
would not verify how often they communicated and would not impeach her
testimony.
The magistrate judge further noted that although the Plaintiff testified
in her deposition that she spoke to Holzknecht about her claims in the
Complaint, the Plaintiff did not talk about the frequency of their contacts.
Because it was Holzknecht who testified about how often they
communicated, therefore, the telephone records would not likely impeach
the Plaintiff’s testimony. For these reasons, Judge Schanzle-Haskins found
the request was overly broad.
The magistrate judge found that the disclosure of extensive personal
information in order to obtain a minimal amount of potentially relevant
information resulted in an undue burden on Holzknecht. Accordingly, the
Court quashed the subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
45(d)(3)(A)(iv).
II.
The Court’s review of the magistrate judge’s discovery-related
4
decisions is governed by Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
see Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th
Cir. 1997), which provides “The district judge to whom the case is assigned
shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of
the magistrate judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The clear
error standard means that the district court can overturn the magistrate
judge’s ruling only if the district court is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made.” Weeks, 126 F.3d at 943.
In their appeal, the Defendants contend that the minimal privacy
interests of the Plaintiff and Holzknecht do not outweigh the importance
of their rights to full discovery. Specifically, an interest in old phone
records, data plans and billing invoices should not outweigh the importance
of the Defendants being able to defend themselves individually and
collectively from what they claim are “unjust and uncorroborated
allegations of harassment and discovery.”
The Plaintiff testified that she called her mother to tell her about the
5
alleged slap on the buttock by Defendant Rick Furlong. According to the
Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 20], this incident allegedly occurred
in August of 2011. The Plaintiff’s deposition testimony does not say when
or what time this occurred, except that she called her mother five minutes
thereafter. Holzknecht’s deposition testimony also does not indicate a
date. Because the date of the alleged occurrence is uncertain, the phone
records of Holzknecht would not appear to be relevant to this
allegation–unless the records showed there were no phone conversations
between the two individuals during Kari Jump’s work hours in August of
2011.
Holzknecht testified that she received a call from the Plaintiff when
Defendant Kurt Eller kicked her in the ankle. Holzknecht further stated
that Plaintiff called her on two occasions that night that Eller pulled her
hair. However, Holzknecht’s deposition testimony does not provide a date
for the alleged occurrences. According to the Second Amended Complaint,
the kicking incident occurred “[i]n or about March 2012" and the hair
pulling is alleged to have occurred “[i]n or about February 2012.”
6
Additionally, neither the Second Amended Complaint nor the cited
portions of the Plaintiff’s deposition provide a date for the Plaintiff’s
allegation that she called her mother the night she was alone and got scared
when she heard something outside her home. The Plaintiff claims that
Defendant Rick Robbins had been sitting outside her home stalking her and
that Plaintiff’s husband allegedly saw Robbins drive past him that night in
a Sheriff’s Office SUV.1 Accordingly, it is unlikely that Holzknecht’s phone
records would be probative as to this alleged incident.2
Certainly, information that could be used to impeach a witness is
relevant under the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, given that most of
the dates of these alleged occurrences are not provided or are stated very
generally, the relevance of Holzknecht’s phone records is at best uncertain.
Additionally, the Defendants assert that the records subpoena to
The Defendants reference page 317 of Kari Jump’s deposition for this
allegation. However, the last page included in the exhibit attached to the filing
is 316.
1
The Defendants state Holzknecht testified she received a phone call
from the Plaintiff at about 10:30 p.m. on the night that Plaintiff thought
someone was outside her home. The cited page of the deposition is not
included as part of the exhibit.
2
7
AT&T seeks relevant information and is not overbroad.
The Court
recognizes that the subpoena seeks records from June of 2011 to June 2012
because that is the time period of the allegations and, further, because the
Defendants could not expect AT&T to redact calls made and received by
people other than the Plaintiff and her mother. The records could only be
requested in the format in which they are kept.
However, when considering the breadth of the request with the
apparent minimal relevance due to the lack of specificity regarding dates,
the Court agrees that this results in an undue burden on non-party Rita
Holzknecht.
Accordingly, the Court is unable to conclude that any portion of
Judge Schanzle-Haskins’s Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Ergo, the Defendants’ Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order [d/e 85]
is DENIED.
The Magistrate Judge’s Opinion and Order Quashing the Subpoena
to AT&T Communications of Illinois [d/e 81] is AFFIRMED.
ENTER: October 29, 2015
8
FOR THE COURT:
s/Richard Mills
Richard Mills
United States District Judge
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?