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that the subpoena was withdrawn on November 23, 2016, before any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withdrawn, and the [c]ourt is satisfied that the withdrawal of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