Arrona et al v. Bluestone Natural Resources, LLC
OPINION AND ORDER denying re: 19 MOTION to Quash DEFENDANTS SUBPOENAS (Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(jdav, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JESUS ARRONA, et al,
BLUESTONE NATURAL RESOURCES,
October 24, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-02680
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Motion filed by Plaintiffs, Jesus Arrona, Mario Arrona,
Cesar Huerta and Abdon Urbina (“Plaintiffs”) to Quash Defendant Bluestone Natural Resources,
LLC’s (“Defendant”) Subpoenas to Pioneer Wells Services, LLC (“Motion”). Doc. 19. Having
considered Plaintiffs’ Motion; Defendant’s Response, Doc. 20; the facts in the record; and the
applicable law, the Court concludes that the Motion should be denied because Plaintiffs lack
standing to challenge the subpoena.
Pioneer Energy Services was designated responsible third party because it allegedly
employed and supervised Plaintiffs during and in connection with the incident made the basis of
this lawsuit. Doc. 13. Subsequently, Pioneer Well Services, LLC was sent a subpoena to produce
certain personal files, job descriptions, certifications, training documentation, safety
documentation, and other documentation concerning Plaintiffs. Docs. 19-2, 20-1, 20-2. Plaintiffs
objected to the subpoenas and Defendant responded. Docs. 19, 20.
Plaintiffs move to quash the subpoena on the three grounds of geographical limitation,
improper discovery mechanism, and irrelevance: (1) “The subpoena requires compliance beyond
the geographical limits of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) and is an impermissible discovery”; (2) “The
proper conduit for obtaining documents from a party is through a Request for Production under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34,” not a subpoena; and (3) “The Defendant’s subpoena to Pioneer Well
Services for the documents aforementioned relating to the Plaintiffs employment do not advance
the inquiry,” and are thus “irrelevant.” Doc. 19 at 2–3. Defendants assert that “Plaintiffs have no
standing to bring this Motion because the Subpoenas are not directed to them.” Doc. 20 at 3. The
A party lacks standing to challenge a subpoena absent possession of the subpoenaed
materials and a showing that he or she has personal right or privilege as to the materials. See
Brown v. Braddick, 595 F.2d 961, 967 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding same under 35 U.S.C. § 24);
Cruz v. Fulton, No. CV 14-2015, 2016 WL 5404634, at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 28, 2016) (extending
Brown to subpoena’s issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45). Sister courts have held
that a party may not challenge a subpoena to a third party on the grounds of irrelevance or undue
burden. Cruz, 2016 WL 5404634, at *2 (summarizing cases). Other courts, however, have held
that a party has standing to move for a protective order to benefit the third party under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Id. citing (Bounds v. Capital Area Family Violence Intervention Ctr.,
Inc., 314 F.R.D. 214, 218–19 (M.D. La. 2016)). The Court finds the sister courts persuasive.
Here, Plaintiffs do not object to the subpoenas on the basis of personal right or privilege,
but on the grounds of (1) geographical limitation, (2) improper discovery mechanism, and (3)
irrelevance. Plaintiffs have not filed a motion for a protective order on behalf of the third party.
Because Plaintiffs do not assert a personal right or privilege, nor did they file a motion for a
protective order, they provide no ground upon which the Court may provide them relief. See
Brown, 595 F.2d at 967; Cruz, 2016 WL 5404634, at *2.
Accordingly, this Court concludes that Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Defendant’s
subpoenas to third party Pioneer Well Services, LLC.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash, Doc. 19, is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 23rd day of October, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?