Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Elzanaty et al

Filing 180

ORDER re 151 and 159 : See attached order for details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay on 9/4/2012. c/ecf (Miller, Dina)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER
CV 11-3862 (ADS)(ARL)

-againstHISHAM ELZANATY, et al.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
LINDSAY, Magistrate Judge:
Before the court is non-party NICB’s motion to quash a subpoena issued to it by the
Elzanaty defendants. The subpoena seeks the production of any documents including investigative
reports, requests for information and bulletins that reference the defendants. NICB objects to the
subpoena on the grounds that (1) the subpoena is overly broad and burdensome; (2) the materials
sought are protected by the law enforcement privilege; and (3) the materials are subject to the workproduct privilege.
The subpoena in question calls for the production of any and all documents referencing any
of the defendants without limits as to dates or subject matter. The defendants contend that the
information sought is relevant to their Statute of Limitations defense and could shed light on when
Allstate learned of the alleged fraud. The defendants’ argument, however, falls short in as much as
the subpoena is not in any way limited in scope and fails to even reference Allstate. The defendants
attempt to justify this broad request by arguing that because another NICB member claimed to have
been the victim of a similar fraud by the defendants that information may have been shared with
Allstate putting Allstate on notice they too might be victims. This thin and unsupported assertion
does not justify imposing the costs and burden of production on a non-party. Moreover, to the
extent the defendants seek communications between the NICB and Allstate they have failed to
address the question of why this burden should be imposed on a non-party when presumably the
very same materials could be sought from Allstate. Accordingly NICB’s motion is granted on the
basis that it overly broad and unduly burdensome.
The NICB contentions that if it complies with any subpoena it could compromise an
ongoing criminal investigation of the defendants and that any such materials are protected by work
product will be addressed should the request be renewed. However, NICB will be required to
provide additional legal support for its assertion that it has standing to assert the law enforcement
privilege, to make a threshold showing that a specific harm is likely to accrue from the disclosure,
and to provide additional information to enable the court to determine whether the documents at
issue were, in fact, prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Dated: Central Islip, New York
September 4, 2012

SO ORDERED:
__________/s/______________
ARLENE ROSARIO LINDSAY
United States Magistrate Judge