Ahmed v. T.J. Maxx Corp. et al

Filing 105

ORDER re #103 : see attached Order for details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 11/7/2013. c/ecf (Johnston, Linda)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
MOHAMMED M. AHMED, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER
CV 10-3609 (ADS)(ARL)

-againstT.J. MAXX CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
LINDSAY, Magistrate Judge:
Before the court is defendant The TJX Companies, Inc.’s (“defendant”) letter application
filed November 5, 2013 seeking to quash a non-party subpoena served on Jeffrey Souza, a former
employee of defendant that worked in Massachusetts. Plaintiffs oppose the motion by letter
response dated November 6, 2013. Defendant’s motion to quash the deposition of non-party
witness Souza is denied.
The court notes that although defense counsel was made aware of plaintiffs’ intention to
depose Souza in mid-October, they delayed filing their motion until November 5, 2013
effectively cutting short defendants’ and the court’s time to review the application and respond.
Mr. Souza has not objected to the deposition and has agreed to appear on November 8, 2013. As
defendant has not identified a personal privilege or right that it is seeking to protect, the
defendant lacks standing to object. See Lev v. South Nassau Communities Hosp., No. CV 105435 (JS)(ARL), 2011 WL 3652282, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011) (“A party ordinarily lacks
standing to challenge a non-party subpoena with a motion . . . . to quash unless the party is
seeking to protect a personal privilege or right”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
With respect to the depositions of the opt-in plaintiffs, the parties are directed to continue
to confer with regard to the scheduling of these deposition. The parties may, if it becomes
necessary, request an extension of the discovery schedule to allow defendants sufficient time to
complete those depositions. Any such extension would be solely for the purpose of the
conduction the opt-in depositions.

Dated: Central Islip, New York
November 7, 2013

SO ORDERED:
___________/s/_____________
ARLENE ROSARIO LINDSAY
United States Magistrate Judge