Lopez et al v. Abbott et al

Filing 3

ORDER GRANTING 1 Motion to Quash; OVERRULING 2 Motion to Transfer Case. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (td)

::

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

ti

19

i

2 23

IN RE: SUBPOENA TO TEXAS SUPREME
COURT JUSTICE EVA M. GUZMAN

Case No. A-17-mc-446-SS

Underlying Action:

LA UNION DEL PUEBLO ENTERO, INC.
("LUPE"), et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:16-cv-00303

-vs-

STATE OF TEXAS,

et al.,

Defendants.

I.,,
BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and

specifically Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva M. Guzman's Motion to Quash Subpoena [#1] and

Plaintiffs' Opposed Expedited Motion to Transfer Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on Justice Eva
M. Guzman [#2]. Having considered the documents and the governing law, the Court now enters the

following opinion and orders granting the motion to quash and overruling the motion to transfer.

Background
This matter stems from a suit filed by Plaintiffs in United States Southern District of Texas
in which Plaintiffs allege a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (the Underlying Case).
In the Underlying Case, Plaintiffs claim their right to vote is improperly diluted by Texas's method

of electing judges to the state's highest courts by statewide ballot. Mot. Quash [#1-1] Ex. A (Am.

'I

Comp.) ¶J 2 1-27. In particular, Plaintiffs allege such an election method "submerges Latino voters
so that they are rendered ineffective electoral minorities in most every election" for judges on

Texas's two highest courts. Id.
On May 1, 2017, Plaintiffs served a subpoena on Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva M.

Guzman (Justice Guzman). Mot. Quash [#1-2] Ex. B (Subpoena) at

1.

To summarize, the subpoena

requests all correspondence, documents, schedules, advertising materials, position papers, and
speeches relating to Justice Guzman's appointment to the bench and her subsequent campaigns for

reelection. Id. at 5-6. As a non-party to the Underlying Case, Justice Guzman moves to quash the

subpoena served upon her, arguing the subpoena imposes an undue burden, features overly board
requests, seeks irrelevant information, and demands privileged and confidential information. Mot.
Quash [#1] at 4-9.

I.

Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a court may quash or modify a subpoena if the

subpoena "(1) fails to allow a reasonable time for compliance; (2) requires a person who is not a

party to travel more than 100 miles from where the person resides; (3) requires disclosure of

privileged or protected matter; or (4) subjects a person to undue burden." Wiwa
Petroleum

Co., 392 F.3d 812, 817-18 (5th Cir. 2004) (footnote omitted) (citing

v.

Royal Dutch

FED. R. Civ. P.

45(3)(A)(i)(iv)). To determine whether the subpoena presents an undue burden, a court considers
factors such as the relevance of the information requested; the need of the party for the documents;

the breadth of the documents requested; the time period covered by the request; the particularity with

which the party describes the requested documents; and the burden imposed. Id. at 818. Further, if

-2-

the person to whom the document request is made is a non-party, the court may also consider the
expense and inconvenience to the non-party. Id. Finally, a court may find that a subpoena presents
an undue burden when the subpoena is facially overbroad. Id.

II.

Application
The Court finds the subpoena served on Justice Guzamn is facially overbroad and imposes

an unreasonable burden on a non-party to the Underlying Case, who is also a sitting Justice of the

Texas Supreme Court. An outrageous abuse of a discovery mechanism, Plaintiffs' subpoena is not

tailored to solicit information connected to any issue to be tried in the Underlying Case. Plaintiffs
provide no basis to suggest Justice Guzman has any materials relating to minority voting or Texas
demographic data. In addition, the subpoena's overly broad requests seek confidential, privileged,
and personal information from Justice Guzman without any indication such information is relevant
to the Underlying Suit.

Morever, as a high-ranking government official, Justice Guzman has greater duties and time
constraints that other witnesses, and thus she should not be bothered by ill-defined and unnecessary
discovery requests. In re F.D.IC., 58 F.3d 1055, 1060 (5th Cir. 1995) ("High ranking government

officials have greater duties and time constraints than other witnesses." (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)). And, if every plaintiff alleging injury by the Texas judiciary system could

subpoena its judges, then justice in Texas would grind to a halt. United States

v.

Wal-Mart Stores,

Inc., No. CIV.A. PJM-0l-1521, 2002 WL 562301, at *1 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2002) ("[L]eft
unprotected, high-ranking government officials would be inundated with discovery obligations

involving scores of cases where the public official would have little or no personal knowledge of

-3-

material facts. Left unchecked, the litigation-related burdens placed upon them would render their
time remaining for government service significantly diluted or completely consumed.").
In essence, Plaintiffs subpoena is irresponsibly general, unduly burdensome, and a flagrant

overreach by Plaintiffs.

Conclusion
Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, the Court QUASHES the subpoena served on

Justice Guzman and OVERRULES Plaintiffs' motion to transfer the motion to quash the subpoena
to the Southern District of Texas.

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva M. Guzman's Motion to

Quash Subpoena [#1]is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the May 1, 2017 subpoena served upon Justice

Guzman is now QUASHED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Opposed Expedited Motion to Transfer

Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on Justice Eva M. Guzman [#2] is OVERRULED; and
IT IS FiNALLY ORDERED that the Clerk's office shall mail a certified copy of this

Order to the Clerk of United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
SIGNED this the

0
lo

day of May 2017.

SAM SPARKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-