Butler v. Christian Island Food Service

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that the motion of Twin City Security, Inc., to quash subpoena [Doc. # 26 ] is granted.. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 5/9/16. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIE L. BUTLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTIAN ISLAND FOOD SERVICE
d/b/a CALECOS BAR & GRILL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15-CV-1118 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of non-party Twin City
Security, Inc., to quash a subpoena from the defendant to produce documents and
attend a deposition.

No response in opposition has been filed, and the time for

doing so has expired.
Plaintiff brings this action pro se claiming employment discrimination on the
basis of race and age under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. Plaintiff alleges that he was harassed and subjected to a
hostile work environment during his employment by defendant and that defendant
retaliated against him by terminating his employment.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) permits parties to “obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense
and is proportional to the needs of the case.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

“Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.” Id. However, “[e]ven if relevant, discovery is not permitted where
there is no need shown or compliance would be unduly burdensome, or where harm
to the person from whom the discovery is sought outweighs the need of the person

seeking the information.” Misc. Docket Matter No. 1 v. Misc. Docket Matter No. 2,
197 F.3d 922, 925 (8th Cir. 1999) (quoting Micro Motion, Inc. v. Kane Steel Co.,
894 F.2d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
With respect to subpoenas, Rule 45(d) states that “[a] party or attorney
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid
imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 45(d)(1). Courts for the district where compliance is required must enforce
this duty and “must quash or modify a subpoena that . . . subjects a person to
undue burden.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv).

persuasion on a motion to quash a subpoena.

The movant has the burden of
9A Charles Alan Wright, et al.,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 2459 (3d ed. 2008); see Enviropak Corp. v.
Zenfinity Capital, LLC, No. 4:14-CV-00754 (ERW), 2014 WL 4715384, at *3 (E.D.
Mo. Sept. 22, 2014). “[C]oncern for the unwanted burden thrust upon non-parties
is a factor entitled to special weight in evaluating the balance of competing needs.”
Misc. Docket Matter No. 1, 194 F.3d at 927 (quoting Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp.,
162 F.3d 708, 717 (1st Cir. 1998)).
Non-party Twin City Security, Inc. (TCS) is plaintiff’s current employer. The
subpoena it moves to quash requests documents and makes inquiries related to
plaintiff’s employment with TCS, including wage statements and his employment
file.

TCS argues that the subpoena subjects it to an undue burden, because

plaintiff has an expectation of privacy in the requested documents and information
and

defendant

authorization.

seeks

these

documents

and

information

without

plaintiff’s

TCS states that it would produce the documents upon plaintiff

signing a written authorization for their release or an appropriate court order.

-2-

The Court finds that TCS has demonstrated that the subpoena imposes an
undue burden on it, which defendant has not refuted. Producing the documents or
information defendant seeks could expose TCS, as plaintiff’s employer, to potential
liability

for

disclosing

confidential

employee

information

without

plaintiff’s

authorization. The Court agrees with TCS that requiring plaintiff to sign a standard
authorization form would ensure that the rights of all parties and nonparties are
protected with the minimum amount of imposition on TCS. However, according to
the information provided by TCS, defendant has not sought to obtain a release from
plaintiff or an appropriate court order.

Defendant has not responded to TCS’s

motion asserting otherwise. Therefore, the Court will quash defendant’s subpoena.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that the motion of Twin City Security, Inc., to
quash subpoena [Doc. #26] is granted.

CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 9th day of May, 2016.

-3-