Baugh et al v. The Federal Savings Bank

Filing 80

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 75 Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum. Signed by Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher on 8/23/2021. (bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

Case 1:17-cv-01735-SAG Document 80 Filed 08/23/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
Fax [phone]

August 23, 2021

LETTER ORDER
RE:

Baugh v. The Federal Savings Bank; Civil Case No. SAG-17-01735

Dear Counsel:
I am in receipt of Smith, Gildea & Schmidt’s (“SGS’s”) Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces
Tecum, ECF 75, and the opposition and reply thereto. ECF 78, 79. No hearing is necessary. See
Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted in part and
denied in part, in that the subpoena will be converted to a request for production of documents, but
certain documents will be ordered to be produced, as described below.
SGS is counsel to Plaintiffs in the instant matter. Defendant The Federal Savings Bank
(“FSB”) issued a subpoena to SGS on July 28, 2021, subpoenaing records relating to SGS’s and
Plaintiffs’ interactions with a critical witness in the case, Christopher Infantino, who previously
worked as a loan officer for FSB. Simultaneously, FSB issued a subpoena to Infantino, requesting
similar documentation. Infantino has since responded that he does not possess any responsive
documentation. SGS has not disclosed whether it has any responsive records, but it has moved to
quash the subpoena as violative of general principles against seeking discovery from opposing
counsel of record.
The discovery sought from SGS is relatively narrow in scope. Simple adjustments to the
requests can be made to ensure that the documentation would be relevant, nonprivileged, and
crucial to FSB’s preparation of its case, given Infantino’s importance to the litigation. Moreover,
no other means exist to obtain the documents being requested, in light of Infantino’s response to
the companion subpoena. While FSB could certainly question Infantino about some of these topics
at his deposition, it should be permitted to obtain copies of existing nonprivileged documentation
as well.
Accordingly, this Court will limit the documents FSB requested to the following, which
will eliminate any requirement to produce drafts or notes that might disclose attorney work product
material:
(1)
All documents constituting communications between you, on the one hand,
and Christopher Infantino, or any attorney, agent, or representative thereof, on the
other hand.
(2)
All documents constituting any communications between Plaintiffs, or any
attorney, agent, or representative thereof, on the one hand, and Christopher
Infantino, or any attorney, agent, or representative thereof, on the other hand.

Case 1:17-cv-01735-SAG Document 80 Filed 08/23/21 Page 2 of 2
D’Alan E. Baugh v. The Federal Savings Bank
Civil Case No. SAG-17-1735
August 23, 2021
Page 2
(3)
All documents constituting any agreement between you, on the one hand,
and Christopher Infantino, or any attorney, agent, or representative thereof, on the
other hand, including any agreement relating to the Affidavit of Chris Infantino
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
(4)
All documents constituting any agreement between Plaintiffs, or any
attorney, agent, or representative thereof, on the one hand, and Christopher
Infantino, on the other hand, including any agreement relating to the Affidavit of
Chris Infantino attached hereto as Exhibit A.
(5)
All documents constituting or reflecting any settlement of claims between
Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Christopher Infantino, non the other hand.
(6)
All documents constituting or reflecting any payment from Christopher
Infantino, or any attorney, agent, or representative thereof, on the one hand, to
Plaintiffs, or any attorney, agent, or representative thereof, on the other hand.
(7)
All documents constituting or reflecting any payment from Plaintiffs, or any
attorney, agent, or representative thereof, on the one hand, to Christopher Infantino,
or any attorney, agent or representative thereof, on the other hand.
These documents should be produced on or before September 13, 2021. For all of the
foregoing reasons, SGS’s Motion to Quash, ECF 75, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART. Despite the informal nature of this letter, it is an Order of the Court and will be docketed
as such.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States District Judge