Postell v. Lane et al

Filing 53

RULING granting 43 Motion to Quash Subpoena, the defendants subpoena issued to At&T Mobility, LLC is quashed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 9/24/2013. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DWAYNE POSTELL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 12-527-BAJ-SCR
GERALD R. LANE, ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
Before the court is the Plaintiff Dwayne Motion to Quash
Subpoena.

Record document number 40.

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 January 1, 2013 through June 30, 2013.
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 43.

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, the Plaintiff Dwayne Postell 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