KRARUP v. MARKOWITZ, DELLHEIM AND BLOCK DMD, LLC et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM ORDER AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD A. MCHUGH ON 6/12/17. 6/12/17 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PRISCILLA KRARUP,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARKOWITZ, DELLHAM AND BLOCK
DMD, LLC b/d/a MAIN LINE CENTER FOR
DENTAL EXCELLENCE, and
DR. DAVID BLOCK, DMD,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

MCHUGH, J.

CIVIL ACTION
No. 16-0861

June 12, 2017
MEMORANDUM

This is a discovery dispute arising out of an employment discrimination suit. Defendant
seeks clarification of the Court’s order of March 27, 2017. In March, without first providing
Plaintiff with notice as required under Rule 45, Defendants served subpoenas ducus tecum on
two of Plaintiff’s former employers seeking production of “all documents . . . in your possession
regarding [Plaintiff].” Plaintiff responded with a Motion to Quash Third Party Subpoenas and
for a Protective Order. In support of that motion, Plaintiff raised two main arguments. First, she
claimed that Defendants’ actions prejudiced her by putting her former employers on notice of her
lawsuit, thereby damaging her reputation within the close-knit community of Suburban
Philadelphia dentists where she would likely seek future employment. Second, she claimed that
Defendants’ request for “all documents” was overbroad and therefore exceeded the scope of
discovery. I granted Plaintiff’s motion and directed Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s

arguments to the extent that they wished to re-issue the quashed subpoenas. Defendants’
response is now before me.
“The serve-and-volley of the federal discovery rules govern the resolution of [a] motion
to quash.” Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 164 F.R.D. 623, 625 (E.D. Pa. 1996). The
subpoenaing party must first demonstrate that it seeks “discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If the subpoena falls within the bounds of discovery, the movant must
demonstrate that Rule 45 provides a basis to quash.
Defendants fail to hold serve. Although they have responded to Plaintiff’s argument
concerning prejudice, they do not explain how their all-encompassing subpoenas fall within the
scope of discovery. In the context of employment discrimination suits, “[c]ourts have routinely
found blanket requests for a plaintiff’s entire personnel or employment file to be impermissibly
broad.” Saller v. QVC, Inc., No. CV 15-2279, 2016 WL 8716270, at *4 (E.D. Pa. June 24,
2016). By failing to address the issue of scope, Defendants have failed to carry their burden; my
order quashing Defendants’ subpoenas therefore remains in effect. If Defendants wish to reissue their subpoenas, they should file with the court a Motion to lift the earlier order and should
address fully the arguments that Plaintiff raised in her Motion to Quash Third Party Subpoenas
and for a Protective Order.

/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh
United States District Judge