Taras v. Hamtramck et al

Filing 32

ORDER Granting Petitioner's 29 Motion to Quash Subpoena and Notice of Deposition. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (Loury, R)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TARAS NYKORIAK,
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 14-11954
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
CITY OF HAMTRAMCK et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
AND NOTICE OF DEPOSITION [ECF NO. 29]
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Quash Subpoena and Notice of
Deposition, filed by the Honorable Paul J. Paruk of the 31st District Court, State of
Michigan (“Petitioner”). Petitioner is a non-party to this action. Petitioner asserts
that the subpoena for his deposition is improper, and should be quashed. The Court
agrees.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the general scope of discovery
is as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
is relevant to any party's claim or defense—including the existence,
description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents
or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who
know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order
discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the
action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the

1

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
Rule 45(d) governs protecting a person subject to a subpoena and provides
that a court must quash or modify a subpoena that, inter alia, “requires disclosure
of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies” or
“subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii)-(iv).
In Plaintiff’s subpoena, he requests that Petitioner bring with him to the
deposition “[a]ny and all materials [he] consulted and/or relied on in issuing and/or
executing any warrant in this case, including, but not limited to, witness statements,
transcripts, affidavits, written documents, notes, reports, depositions, statements,
research, diagrams, photos, maps and other materials used”; and that petitioner
provide “all documents reviewed, relied upon, consulted or examined in any way
in order to form your opinions in this matter.” (Subpoena, ECF No. 29-2 at Pg. ID
191.)
Having reviewed the complaint, the subpoena, and Plaintiff’s response to the
motion, it is apparent that Plaintiff is seeking to depose Petitioner to further
support his assertion that the warrant issued for his arrest did not satisfy Fourth
Amendment requirements. The deposition of Petitioner is not necessary to
determine whether the warrant satisfied Fourth Amendment requirements. Any
information that Plaintiff seeks to garner in support of this assertion can be
2

obtained from alternative sources, such as the warrant itself. “There is substantial
case law standing for the proposition that high-ranking government officials are
not generally subject to depositions unless they have some personal knowledge
about the matter and the party seeking the deposition makes a showing that the
information cannot be obtained elsewhere.” Jackson v. City of Detroit, No. 0574236, 2007 WL 2225886, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 1, 2007).
The Court is not persuaded that the information sought could not adequately
be discovered through other means. Because Plaintiff is able to obtain information
sought in this matter from other sources and means, the attempt to seek or compel
discovery from Petitioner in this case is improper. See id.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Motion to Quash
Subpoena Seeking Notice of Deposition is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.

s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 28, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, April 28, 2015, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ Richard Loury
Case Manager
3