Allen v. TV One, LLC et al
Filing
94
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/30/2017. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
NIKKI WEBBER ALLEN
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 15-1960
:
TV ONE, LLC
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently
pending
and
ready
for
resolution
in
this
employment discrimination case are two motions to quash third
party subpoenas filed by Defendant TV One.
The
issues
have
been
briefed,
hearing being deemed necessary.
and
the
(ECF Nos. 80; 81).1
court
now
rules,
Local Rule 105.6.
no
For the
following reasons, the motions will be denied as moot.
A recitation of the factual background can be found in the
court’s prior memorandum opinion denying Defendant’s motion to
dismiss.
(ECF No. 27, at 1-8).
Defendant
Plaintiff
service
has
served
provider
on
for
moved
AT&T
to
quash
Wireless
Jacqueline
third
(“AT&T”),
Kindall,
a
party
the
former
subpoenas
cell
phone
Radio
One
employee who supervised the TV One Human Resources Department,
and
on
Verizon
Communications
service provider for Ms. Hughes.
1
(“Verizon”),
the
(ECF Nos. 80; 81).
cell
phone
Plaintiff
Cross motions for summary judgment are also pending, and
will be resolved in a separate opinion.
filed responses in opposition to both motions (ECF Nos. 82; 85),
and Defendant replied (ECF No. 86).
I.
Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on AT&T
Defendant
moves
to
quash
the
subpoena
served
on
AT&T,
requesting records of all calls and text messages to and from
Ms. Kindall’s personal cell phone between June 21 and June 26,
2014.
(ECF No. 80).
Defendant argues that the subpoena was
overbroad, requested potentially privileged information, and was
issued after discovery closed, without providing advance notice
to Defendant’s counsel in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(a)(4).
(ECF No. 80-1, at 1, 3-5).
Plaintiff states in her opposition
that the subpoena was withdrawn on November 23, 2016, before any
documents
were
produced
in
response,
and
that
Plaintiff’s
counsel provided Defendant with confirmation of the withdrawal
on November 28.
(ECF No. 82, at 3).
“The withdrawal of the subpoena render[s] the motion to
quash
moot.”
(Bankr.D.C.
In
re
AmFin
2014)(citing
Financial
Hardee
v.
Corp.,
U.S.,
503
2007
B.R.
WL
1,
2
3037308
(W.D.N.C. Oct. 16, 2007) (denying the petitioner’s motion to
quash
subpoena
as
moot
“[s]ince
the
subpoenas
have
been
withdrawn, and the [c]ourt is satisfied that the withdrawal of
the
subpoenas
have
completely
eradicated
any
effect
of
the
alleged violation in the motion to quash.”); see also McCrea v.
John Hopkins Univs., No. JKB-15-579, 2016 WL 4013639, at *1 n.1
2
(D.Md. July 27, 2016) (denying the plaintiff’s motion to quash
subpoena as moot in light of the defendants’ first opposition
and motion, in which the defendants stated that the subpoena was
withdrawn).
Accordingly,
Defendant’s
motion
to
quash
the
subpoena served on AT&T will be denied as moot.
II.
Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on Verizon and for
Sanctions
For the same reasons Defendant sought to quash the subpoena
served
on
AT&T,
Defendant
served
on
Verizon
also
requesting
moves
records
to
of
quash
all
the
calls
subpoena
and
text
messages to and from Ms. Hughes’s personal cell phone between
June 21 and June 26, 2014.
(ECF No. 81-1, at 6).
The documents
requested have already been produced in response to the subpoena
and were provided to Defendant on November 23, 2016, before the
motion to quash was filed.
(ECF Nos. 81-1, at 3; 81-4; 82-4).
Accordingly, the motion to quash is inappropriate and will be
denied as moot.2
This motion requests sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel
due
to
counsel’s
scheduling
order
“repeated
and
failure”
Fed.R.Civ.P.
2
to
obey
45(a)(4)’s
the
court’s
requirement
to
Defendant’s counsel argues that, with advance notice, they
would have objected to the subpoena on the grounds that it was
unauthorized, overbroad, and sought irrelevant and privileged
information. (ECF No. 81-1, at 6). Should Plaintiff attempt to
use the documents produced in response to the subpoena,
Defendant’s objections can be addressed at that time.
3
provide Defendant with advance notice before serving third party
subpoenas.
Specifically,
Defendant
requests
that
the
court
“order Plaintiff to return and not keep any copies of any and
all records she received from Verizon and/or AT&T in response to
her improper subpoenas” (Id.).
Although Defendant refers to the
standard for granting a motion for a protective order under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), Defendant has filed a motion to quash and
for sanctions, not for a protective order.
that
Plaintiff
pending
has
motions
for
attempted
summary
to
use
these
judgment,
and
It does not appear
documents
the
in
question
the
of
whether Plaintiff should be precluded from using the documents
will be deferred.
The court declines to issue sanctions.
For the foregoing reasons, the motions to quash third party
subpoenas filed by Defendant TV One will be denied as moot.
separate order will follow.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
4
A
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?