Kruse et al v. Regina Caeli, Inc. et al

Filing 70

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' 17 Motion to Quash - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN G. KRUSE, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

No. 16-10304

v.

District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

REGINA CAELI, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
Defendants have filed a motion to quash subpoena and for protective order [Doc.
#17], in which they seek to quash Plaintiffs’ subpoena to Choice Payroll, Inc.,
Defendants’ payroll firm, requesting “[a]ll records (including electronic mail) relating to
any instructions provided to you by Regina Caeli, Inc. (“RCA”) concerning payroll
deductions for any RCA employee; accounting for RCA tuition discounts and accounting
for RCA volunteer hours; all records related to former RCA employee Marie Kruse; all
records related to RCA employee Kari Beckman.” The motion will be GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 (d)(3)(A)(iv) provides that the court must quash or modify a
subpoena that “subjects a person to undue burden.” Rule 45(d)(3)(B) permits the court to
quash or modify a subpoena that requires disclosing confidential commercial information
in order to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena. Whether a burden is
“undue” requires weighing “the likely relevance of the requested material...against the
burden...of producing the material.” EEOC v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 26 F.3d 44, 47 (6th
-1-

Cir. 1994).
In a previous order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel discovery [Doc. #68], I found that Kari Beckman’s salary and benefit
information, as well as that of McDonough and Ahern, was discoverable from the
Defendants.1 The motion to quash will therefore be DENIED as to the payroll records of
these individuals. However, the requests for records of any RCA employee, or of
“instructions” that RCA gave to its payroll company, are beyond the scope of what may
be considered relevant to Plaintiffs’ specific claims, and the Defendants’ motion will be
GRANTED to the extent that the subpoena will be modified, to exclude any information
other than the payroll records of Beckman, McDonough, Ahern, and Plaintiff Marie
Kruse.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: July 5, 2016

1

In their motion, at p. 6, Defendants state “that they do not object to the production
of Plaintiff Marie Kruse’s payroll records from Choice Payroll, Inc.”
2

Plaintiffs’ hyperbolic assertion that “RCA is run as a slush fund for Mr. and Mrs.
Beckman and their friends” does not appear relevant to the claims raised in the amended
complaint.
-2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on July 5, 2016 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper
with the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered
electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following
non-registered ECF participants July 5, 2016.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager for the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-3-