Hughes v. Flintco, LLC
Filing
36
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting in part 27 Motion to Quash (tjc, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
STEPHEN D. HUGHES,
v.
FLINTCO, LLC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant. )
Case No. 18-CV-225-GKF-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena, [Dkt. 27], is before the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge for decision.
In this case, Plaintiff seeks damages from
Defendant, claiming he was discriminated against during his employment. Defendant
denies it discriminated against Plaintiff and additionally defends on the grounds that Plaintiff
has not reasonably and in good faith mitigated his damages. To attempt to prove Plaintiff’s
failure to mitigate his damages, Defendant subpoenaed the following documents from
Plaintiff’s subsequent employer:
1) Any and all payroll and personnel records for Stephen D.
Hughes...related to his employment with your company and
any successor entities and/or associations, including but not
limited to: complete payroll file, employment benefits,
personnel file, application, notes, memorandums, performance
evaluations/reviews, write-ups, disciplinary records, personnel
action reports and any exit interviews.
2) Any document or records regarding claims of discrimination
and/or retaliation asserted by Mr. Hughes; workers’
compensation claims filed by Mr. Hughes; labor claims filed by
Mr. Hughes; unemployment claims filed by Mr. Hughes; and
filing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;
Oklahoma Human Rights Commission and/or Oklahoma
Attorney’s [sic] General Office regarding claims of
discrimination and/or retaliation by Mr. Hughes.
Plaintiff now moves to quash or modify the subpoena arguing that many of the
documents are not relevant to the claims or defenses in the case. Defendant responds that
the subpoena is narrowly targeted to documents relevant to Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate his
damages. The court does not agree.
Initially, the court would observe that it is difficult to characterize a subpoena as
narrowly targeted when it requests “Any and all payroll and personnel records...related to
his employment...including but not limited to...” Moreover, many of the items requested,
such as claims of discrimination, have no apparent connection to Plaintiff’s efforts to
mitigate his damages and Defendant offers no explanation for the requests in its response
to the Motion to Quash.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena, [Dkt. 27], is GRANTED in part. The subpoena
is modified to require only the production of documents relating to Plaintiff’s compensation,
including wages and benefits, and all records relating to why Plaintiff’s employment was not
continued. These documents will allow Defendant to fully discover information relevant to
Plaintiff’s mitigation of damages while avoiding the production of irrelevant information.
SO ORDERED this 27th day of November, 2018.
2
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?