CRISSEN v. GUPTA et al

Filing 44

ENTRY in Support of 42 Marginal Notation granting in part and denying in part 36 Motion to Quash - This entry explains that marginal notation, which granted the motion, in part, and denied it, in part. The Magistrate Judge concludes that this cou rt does not technically have jurisdiction to determine whether to quash this Subpoena. However, because the case remains pending in this district, Rule 26 gives this court authority to issue a protective order with respect to discovery generally. Please see Entry for specifics. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 6/11/2013.(NRN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
JOSHUA B. CRISSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
VINOD C. GUPTA and
WIPER CORPORATION,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-355-JMS-WGH

ENTRY IN SUPPORT OF ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND
DENYING, IN PART, DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION
TO QUASH NON-PARTY SUBPOENA DIRECTED AT BANCO
POPULAR NORTH AMERICA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
This matter is before the Honorable William G. Hussmann, Jr., United
States Magistrate Judge, on Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Quash Non-Party
Subpoena Directed at Banco Popular North America and for Protective Order filed
May 22, 2013. (Docket No. 36). Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to the motion
was filed May 28, 2013. (Docket No. 40). The Magistrate Judge entered a
marginal notation on June 4, 2013. (Docket No. 42). This entry explains that
marginal notation, which granted the motion, in part, and denied it, in part.
The Magistrate Judge concludes that this court does not technically have
jurisdiction to determine whether to quash this Subpoena. However, because the
case remains pending in this district, Rule 26 gives this court authority to issue a
protective order with respect to discovery generally. Rule 45(c)(3)(B) allows a
protective order “[t]o protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena.”

(Emphasis added.) In this case, although the Defendants are not subject to the
Subpoena, Exhibit A to the Subpoena specifically asks for documents of Banco
Popular North America that relate to the individual Defendants. The individual
Defendants, therefore, are “affected” by that Subpoena, which may require the
disclosing of commercial and personal banking information.
In this case, the items requested are all relevant to the matter pending
before the court at this time. However, financial statements of the individual
Defendants, loan or letter of credit applications, and personal tax returns are not
relevant, because they contain personal financial information not necessary for
the determination of the issues before the court at this time. Traditionally,
personal financial information is considered confidential information. The
Magistrate Judge may reconsider the relevancy of the excluded information, but
only upon a more specific showing of good cause and substantial need by the
proponent of the Subpoena. Therefore, while the Motion to Quash must be
denied, a limited protective order will issue to protect certain financial data, at
least until a later date when a more specific showing of relevancy is made.

Entered: June 11, 2013
__________________________
William G. Hussmann, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Served electronically on all ECF-registered counsel of record.

-2-