PLOURDE v. HIGGINS et al

Filing 35

ORDER dismissing as moot in part and granting in part 24 Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
GLEN PLOURDE,
Plaintiff
v.
BRIAN HIGGINS, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:23-cv-00323-JAW

ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
Plaintiff served a subpoena upon Defendant City of Bangor (the City) seeking the
names of the city police officers who were at Plaintiff’s residence on two dates in 2017.
Plaintiff also requested the addresses of the officers for service of process. The City has
moved to quash or modify the subpoena. (Motion to Quash, ECF No. 24.)
In its motion, the City also responded to the subpoena and provided most of the
requested information. In its reply memorandum, the City represents that the City, its
police department, and Officers Davis and Higgins are prepared to waive service of
process. (Reply Memorandum at 2, ECF No. 28.) The City declined to provide the
addresses of two former police officers.
Through the City’s response to the subpoena and the willingness of all but one of
the defendants to waive personal service largely resolve the issues presented by the motion
to quash. The sole issue that remains is the City’s objection to providing the addresses of
two of its former police officers. One of the officers is a party to the case – Defendant
Lewis. Although the other officer, Officer Gastia, is not currently a party to the case,

Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the amended complaint to add Officer Gastia as a
defendant. (Motion to Amend, ECF No. 29.)
The City’s objection is based principally on its belief that the requested information
is part of the officers’ personnel files, which are confidential. The City also observes that
because it does not update the information as to former employees, the City cannot confirm
the officers’ current addresses.
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,” considering, among
other factors, “whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its
likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A)(iii)
provides that a court must quash or modify a subpoena if it “requires disclosure of
privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies.”
Under Maine law, the addresses of public employees are confidential. See 30-A
M.R.S. § 2702(1)(B)(6)(3); 1 M.R.S. § 402(3)(O)(1). Because the information is
confidential by statute, the Court will not require the City to provide Plaintiff with the
addresses of its former police officers.
After consideration of the parties’ written arguments and following a review of the
record, the Court dismisses as moot a portion of the motion to quash and grants in part a
portion of the motion. Because the City has provided the information and because certain
defendants have agreed to waive service, the Court dismisses the motion as to the requests
for the identity of the officers who appeared at his residence and the addresses of
Defendants Higgins and Davis. In accordance with the City’s representation in its reply
2

memorandum, the City, the City’s police department, and Defendants Higgins and Davis
shall file waivers of service. The Court grants the motion as to the request for the addresses
of two of the police officers (Officers Lewis and Gastia). The City is not required to
provide the addresses. 1
NOTICE
Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 9th day of July, 2024.

The Court notes that Plaintiff is interested in the addresses to assist in serving the officers with the first
amended complaint and summons. Plaintiff acknowledges that there is no need for him to have access to
the addresses provided the Marshal’s service can serve the officers. In the event the lack of the addresses
is or becomes an impediment to service for the Marshal’s service, the Court would consider an appropriate
motion by Plaintiff to assist with service. Because Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the amended
complaint, which motion is opposed and is pending, the Court suggests that the issue of service of
Defendant Lewis and potentially Officer Gastia be deferred until after the Court has ruled on the motion to
amend.

1

3