DiLeo v. Lane et al
Filing
48
RULING granting 38 Motion to Quash Subpoena, defendants' subpoena issued to AT&T Mobility LLC is quashed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 9/22/2013. (LLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARK DILEO
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 12-522-BAJ-SCR
GERALD R. LANE, ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
Before the court is Plaintiff Marc Dileo’s Motion to Quash
Subpoena.
Record document number 38.
The motion is opposed.1
Defendants Gerald R. Lane and Gerry Lane Enterprises, Inc.,
issued a subpoena to AT&T Mobility, LLC to obtain the plaintiff’s
cellular phone records, including call details and text details,
for the period covering September 1, 2012 through October 31, 2012.
Plaintiff moved to quash the subpoena on two grounds: the records
are protected by the attorney-client privilege and they are not
relevant.
Defendants
opposed
the
motion
on
three
grounds:
plaintiff does not have standing to move to quash the subpoena,
plaintiff waived the attorney-client privilege as to the records
sought, and the records are relevant.
Plaintiff has standing to move to quash the subpoena.
While
the records sought are the property of At&T Mobility, they are
records of the plaintiff’s private activities.
Plaintiff has a
personal interest in the disclosure of records which reveal the
1
Record document number 41.
details of who he called/texted, who called/texted him, and the
content of the text messages.
Plaintiff’s
unpersuasive.
attorney-client
privilege
argument
is
First, he did not assert the privilege as to the
same records when they were sought from him directly, thereby
waiving the privilege.
Even it was not waived, he did not support
his later assertion of the privilege as required by Rule 26(b)(5),
Fed.R.Civ.P.
As to call records (call date/time/duration and the
number called), the plaintiff has not shown that this information
is privileged.
As to text messages, the plaintiff has not shown
that any specific text message contains any information which would
be protected as an attorney-client communication.
assertion
that
some
text
messages
may
contain
Plaintiff’s
privileged
information is not sufficient to support the privilege.
Plaintiff’s relevancy argument is persuasive.
Defendants’
argument is based on the speculative premise that he communicated
via his cellular telephone with co-workers, other plaintiffs and
other non-lawyers about his working conditions or termination.
Defendants argued that they “are entitled to discover whether
Plaintiff was communicating with any other individual currently in
litigation against them,” that “[t]here may be information in these
records relevant to the claims of constructive discharge and
allegations that Plaintiff made complaints of discrimination to his
supervisors.”
But the defendants have not shown that any such
2
communications ever occurred; defendants want to go through the
plaintiff’s cellular telephone records to find out if they did.
This is more like a fishing expedition than discovery reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Marc Dileo’s Motion to Quash Subpoena
is granted and the defendants’ subpoena issued to At&T Mobility,
LLC is quashed.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 24, 2013.
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
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?