Navarro Hernandez v. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol

Filing 48

ORDER granting 41 Motion to Quash. The two new notices of subpoenaed depositions in this matter are hereby quashed. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 5/27/11. (sek, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOAQUIN NAVARRO HERNANDEZ

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 10-4602

UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION AGENCY

SECTION: J(3)

ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Quash (Rec. Doc.
41) and Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition (Rec. Doc. 45).
Defendant seeks to quash two new notices of subpoenaed
depositions by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff argues that Defendant
does not have standing to quash the subpoenas and that the
proposed depositions are appropriate and relevant to the
litigation.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 provides that the “court
must quash or modify a subpoena that . . . subjects a person to
undue burden.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv).

To quash

notices of subpoenaed depositions under Rule 45, a party must
show that it has a personal right or privilege with respect to

the information or documents subpoenaed.
595 F.2d 961, 967 (5th Cir. 1979).

See Brown v. Braddick,

A party who is not the person

to whom a subpoena is directed and not the person with possession
of the requested materials can have standing under this standard
if he or she “has a personal right or privilege in the subject
matter of the subpoena or a sufficient interest in it.”

Kiger v.

Plaisance Dragline and Dredging Co., 2006 WL 3228289, at *1 (E.D.
La. Nov. 2, 2006) (citing Brown, 595 F.2d at 967).

The Court

finds that Defendant in this case has a sufficient interest in
the subject matter of the two notices of subpoenaed depositions,
so it has standing to quash them.
Furthermore, under the “undue burden” standard of Rule 45,
the Court finds that the two notices of subpoenaed depositions
will cause an undue burden on Defendant.

The two proposed

depositions will not provide Plaintiff with new information
concerning Defendant’s record-keeping processes and procedures,
which is the focus of this litigation, that has not already been
obtained by Plaintiff’s prior depositions.

Instead, the two

proposed depositions will provide discovery that is inappropriate
in FOIA cases and that will cause Defendant to expend unnecessary
time and expense.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Quash (Rec. Doc.
41) is GRANTED.

The two new notices of subpoenaed depositions in

this matter are hereby quashed.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 27th day of May, 2011.

____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE