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)

Download PDF
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?