Gentry v. Maggie Valley Resort Management, LLC et al
Filing
68
ORDER granting 52 Motion to Quash the subpoena issued to Honours Group. The Court DIRECTS Honours Group that it need not respond to the subpoena and need not produce the materials requested by Plaintiff in the subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 03/11/2014. (thh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:13cv108
JUDITH GENTRY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MAGGIE VALLEY RESORT
)
MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Quash [# 52]. Defendant Jay
Manner moves to quash the subpoena Plaintiff served on Defendant Manner’s
current employer, Honours Group. Defendant Manner also seeks a protective
order directing that all materials received in response to the subpoena be returned
to sender. The Court GRANTS the motion [# 52].
I.
Analysis
This is the second motion seeking to quash a subpoena filed by Defendant
Manner. Previously, the Court held a discovery hearing in order to address a
Motion to Quash a number of subpoenas issued to Defendant Manner’s past
employers. After the benefit of oral argument, the Court granted the Motion to
Quash and quashed the subpoenas. (Order, Jan. 9, 2014.) The Court found that the
-1-
subpoenas were overbroad. (Id.) The Court entered a brief written Order
memorializing its oral Order of January 6, 2014. Specifically, the Court found:
As to the remaining subpoenas issued to Shinnoecock Hills Golf Club,
Jupiter Island Club, Forsyth Country Club, Honours Group, LLC, and
Maine Community College System, the Court ENTERS this
Protective Order directing the subjects of the subpoenas that they need
not respond to the subpoenas and need not produce the materials
requested by Plaintiff in these subpoenas. The Court finds these
subpoenas to be overbroad. The Court, however, will not require
Plaintiff to seek leave of Court before issuing further subpoenas, and
the Court will not rewrite the subpoenas for counsel to render them
valid as requested by the parties. It is up to counsel, not this Court to
issue a valid and enforceable subpoena that is not overbroad.
(Order, Jan. 9, 2014, at p. 3-4.)
Plaintiff then served a second subpoena on Honours Group. The second
subpoena seeks “any and all documents about Carl J. Manner Jr. . . that relate to
the nature and terms of any employment relationship that he previously had, or
currently has, with Honours Group, LLC, and/or Honours Group Company LLC,
or any related company, including but not limited to . . . .” (Ex. B. to Def.’s Mot.
Quash). For the reasons stated at the January 6, 2014, hearing, the second
subpoena is also overbroad; the subpoena seeks every document related in any
manner to Defendant Manner’s employment with Honours Group. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS the motion [# 52] and QUASHES the subpoena issued by
Plaintiff to Honours Group.
-2-
II.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the Motion to Quash [# 52] and QUASHES the
subpoena issued to Honours Group. The Court DIRECTS Honours Group that it
need not respond to the subpoena and need not produce the materials requested by
Plaintiff in the subpoena. The Court, however, will leave it to the District Court to
determine at trial whether to allow the admission of any documents already
produced in response to the overbroad subpoena.
Signed: March 11, 2014
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?