Chinn v. The Elmwood Franklin School et al

Filing 101

ORDER granting 91 Motion to Quash. Signed by Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder Jr. on 5/30/2018. (KER)(Mailed to Plaintiff)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SHELLONNEE B. CHINN,
Plaintiff,
-v-

15-CV-938G(Sr)

THE ELMWOOD FRANKLIN SCHOOL,
et al.,
Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER
This case is referred to the Hon. Jeremiah J. McCarthy by the Hon. Frank
P. Geraci, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), for all pretrial matters. Dkt. #72. Upon
plaintiff’s motion, Judge McCarthy recused himself from the consideration of non-party
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center’s (“Roswell Park’s”), motion to quash
subpoenas seeking:
Copies of minutes of Roswell Park Board/Trustee/Director
meetings, including minutes of any executive session, along
[with] minutes of any meeting involving Michael L. Joseph
and person(s) in roles of President or CEO of Roswell Park
between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2017.
(Dkt. #98, p.16);
and
Copies of all complaints, filed internally or with any third
party agency or organization, by Roswell Park employees
against Roswell Park alleging either disparate treatment,
discriminatory treatment, or failure to promote, on account of
race, gender or age between January 1, 2013 and
December 31, 2017. (Dkt. #98, p.18).
Dkt. #96.

Plaintiff’s pro se complaint alleges that she was subjected to age, gender
and racial discrimination, as well as retaliation, during her employment as a
kindergarten teacher. Dkt. #1. She has sued 8 employees and 21 Trustees of the
Elmwood Franklin School, including the President of the Board of Trustees, Michael L.
Joseph. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff alleges that the Trustees were aware of the discrimination
against plaintiff, but failed to protect her from such discrimination, resulting in her
suspension and termination. Dkt. #1.

Plaintiff claims that the information sought from Roswell Park is relevant
because Mr. Joseph is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Roswell Park and likely
acted similarly at Roswell Park as he did in the investigation of issues relating to
plaintiff’s suspension and termination of her employment at the Elmwood Franklin
School. Dkt. #98. More specifically, plaintiff alleges that the information sought may
demonstrate the extent to which Mr. Joseph was instrumental “in setting employment
and hiring policies at Roswell Park that may, or may not, tend to show racial, gender
[or] age animus” or establish that Mr. Joseph “exhibited racial, gender, and age
animus.” Dkt. #98, ¶¶ 24-25.

Roswell Park argues that none of the information sought is relevant to
plaintiff’s claims, seeks privileged and otherwise protected information from a non-party
to plaintiff’s lawsuit and would be unduly burdensome to produce. Dkt. #91-4.

-2-

“The reach of a subpoena issued pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 is subject
to the general relevancy standard applicable to discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1).” Syposs v. U.S., 181 F.R.D. 224, 226 (W.D.N.Y. 1998); See Weinstein v.
University of Connecticut, No. 07 Civ. 3219, 2012 WL 3443340, at *2 (D. Conn Aug. 15,
2012) (citing Advisory Committee Notes to 1970 Amendments to Rule 45 stating that
“the scope of discovery through a subpoena is the same as that applicable to Rule 34
and the other discovery rules.”). As amended in 2015, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)
provides, in relevant part:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant
information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within the scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
The Advisory Committee Notes to the 2015 Amendment clarifies that the rule was
amended to “encourage judges to be more aggressive in identifying and discouraging
discovery overuse.” In addition, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(B)(I), “a court may
quash, modify or condition a subpoena to protect a person affected by the subpoena
from unnecessary or unduly harmful disclosures of confidential information.” Syposs,
181 F.R.D. at 226. Whether a subpoena imposes an undue burden depends upon
consideration of “relevance, the need of the party for the documents, the breadth of the
document requests, the time period covered by it, the particularity with which the
documents are described and the burden imposed.” Libaire v. Kaplan, 760 F. Supp.2d
-3-

288, 293-94 (E.D.N.Y. 2011). While the burden of demonstrating relevance is borne by
the party seeking discovery, Quotron Sys., Inc. v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 141
F.R.D. 37, 41 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), the burden of persuasion on a motion to quash a
subpoena is borne by the movant. Sea Tow Int’l v. Pontin, 246 F.R.D. 421, 424
(E.D.N.Y. 2007). The decision whether to quash or modify a subpoena is committed to
the sound discretion of the trial court. Libaire, 760 F. Supp.2d at 291.

In the instant case, there is no indication that any of the materials sought
from Roswell Park have any relevance to plaintiff’s claims of discrimination in her
employment at the Elmwood Franklin School. The fact that Mr. Joseph is on the Board
of Directors at both the Elmwood Franklin School and Roswell Park is insufficient to
create a nexus between the employment policies and practices at these disparate
institutions. Moreover, requiring the production of multiple years of Roswell Park
meeting minutes and employee complaints of discrimination would not only expose
confidential information but would also impose a significant burden on Roswell Park
without any proportionate benefit to the fact finding process in this case. Accordingly,
the motion to quash the subpoenas (Dkt. #96), is granted.

SO ORDERED.

DATED:

Buffalo, New York
May 30, 2018
s/ H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr.
H. KENNETH SCHROEDER, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
-4-