Allen v. TV One, LLC et al
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
Civil Action No. DKC 15-1960
TV ONE, LLC
employment discrimination case are two motions to quash third
party subpoenas filed by Defendant TV One.
hearing being deemed necessary.
(ECF Nos. 80; 81).1
Local Rule 105.6.
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
(ECF No. 27, at 1-8).
employee who supervised the TV One Human Resources Department,
service provider for Ms. Hughes.
(ECF Nos. 80; 81).
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).
Motion to Quash 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,
(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that the subpoena was withdrawn on November 23, 2016, before any
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
(W.D.N.C. Oct. 16, 2007) (denying the petitioner’s motion to
withdrawn, and the [c]ourt is satisfied that the withdrawal of
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
(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
subpoena served on AT&T will be denied as moot.
Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on Verizon and for
For the same reasons Defendant sought to quash the subpoena
messages to and from Ms. Hughes’s personal cell phone between
June 21 and June 26, 2014.
(ECF No. 81-1, at 6).
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
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.
provide Defendant with advance notice before serving third party
“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.
It does not appear
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.
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
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?