McCollum et al v. Bentley et al
ORDER denying 37 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 2/12/2018.(abuc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jeffrey Brook McCollum,
Hannah Whitfield McCollum,
Jacoby Trucking and Delivery, LLC,
Foundation Xpress, LLC,
John Does 1–10,
C/A No. 8:17-cv-01244-DCC
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Reconsider the Court’ Order granting
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and for Protective Order (“the Motion”) filed
by Defendants Jacoby Trucking and Delivery, LLC, and Foundation Express, LLC,
(“Defendants”). ECF No. 37. Plaintiffs filed a Response on Opposition to the Motion and
Defendant filed a Reply. ECF Nos. 38, 39. The Court directed the parties to submit additional
briefing addressing what relevant information Defendants are seeking in Plaintiff Jeffrey Brook
McCollum’s employment records in light of the fact that Plaintiffs have stipulated that they are
not seeking economic damages. ECF No. 41. Plaintiffs and Defendants have fully briefed this
issue. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of an automobile accident on May 13, 2014, in Williamston,
Plaintiffs allege causes of action for negligence, negligent supervision and
training, and loss of consortium. ECF No. 1.
In its Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash, the Court determined that Defendants
had not made any showing that any relevant information in Plaintiff Jeffery Brook McCollum’s
employment records was being sought beyond the wage information. Given the stipulation by
Plaintiffs regarding economic damages, the Court agreed with Plaintiffs that the requested
information did not appear to be relevant nor did it appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of any relevant evidence.
In their additional briefing in support of their Motion, Defendants contend that they are
seeking Plaintiff Jeffrey Brook McCollum’s employment records in order to verify his claims
regarding his medical conditions and to assess his credibility. ECF No. 42 at 2–3, 5. While the
Court makes no determination on Defendants’ ability to fashion a sufficiently narrowly tailored
subpoena after additional discovery, at this procedural posture, Defendants’ have not shown that
their request for the employment records is relevant or proportioned to the needs of this case.
Accordingly, the Motion should be denied.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider the Court’s Order granting
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and for Protective Order, ECF No. 37, is
IT IS SO ORDERED
s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
February 12, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina
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?