Beane v. Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co et al

Filing 283

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 277 Motion for Protective Order; denying 277 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay on 2/1/13. (crt,Kennedy, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
MONIQUE L. BEANE,
INDIVIDUALLYAND AS NATURAL
TUTRIX OFTHE MINOR CHILD,
J. E. B.
VS.
UTILITY TRAILER
MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
ET AL

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-781
JUDGE MINALDI
MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is a Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Notice/Subpoena
by Plaintiff, Monique L. Beane. For the reasons discussed herein, the motion is DENIED.
Defendant, United Trailer Manufacturing Company (“UTM”), acting pursuant to Rule
30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, served a Notice of Taking Video Deposition
Upon Oral Examination with Subpoena Duces Tecum upon McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc., a nonparty to this litigation. Doc. 277, Att. 1.
Plaintiff objects to the scheduled deposition and subpoena duces tecum on a number of
grounds, including (1) she was served without warning or advanced notice, (2) the deposition is
unlikely to yield any relevant evidence, (3) McKenzie has not ever been listed as a potential
witness in the matter, and (4) there are less burdensome ways that UTM could get the
information they want. Doc. 277, Att. 3.
Plaintiff lacks standing to raise these objections. The general rule is that a party lacks
standing to quash a subpoena served on a third party. Windsor v. Martindale, 175 F.R.D. 665,
668 (D. Colo. 1997); Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc. v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y., 519 F. Supp. 668,

680 (D. Del. 1981). The Fifth Circuit recognizes two narrow exceptions when the objecting
party is in “possession of the materials subpoenaed” or “allege[s] any personal right or privilege
with respect to the materials subpoenaed.” Brown v. Braddick, 595 F.2d 961 (5th Cir. 961).
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate either exception applies in this instance.
Therefore, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers this 1st day of February, 2013.