Lyons v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 28

ORDER denying Defendant's 19 Motion to Quash Subpoena. Signed by Judge John H. Chun. (SB)

Case 3:22-cv-05462-JHC Document 28 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

JOHN LYONS,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05462-JHC
ORDER

v.
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

13
14

I.

15

INTRODUCTION

16

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s “Motion to Quash, or in the

17

Alternative, Motion for a Protective Order.” See Dkt. # 19. For the reasons below, the Court

18

DENIES the motion.

19

II.

20

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff sued USAA Casualty Insurance Company (“USAA Insurer”) alleging

22

misconduct in the handling of his home insurance policy. Dkt. # 1. Plaintiff later sought leave

23

to amend the complaint; in part, to add a claim for wrongful termination against his former

24
ORDER - 1

Case 3:22-cv-05462-JHC Document 28 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 5

1

employer, a USAA Insurer affiliate named “United Services Automobile Association” (“USAA

2

Employer”). Dkt. ## 10, 12. Plaintiff alleged that USAA Employer fired him in part because he

3

filed and vigorously pursued an insurance claim with his employer’s affiliate, USAA Insurer.

4

The Court denied this part of the motion for leave to amend. Dkt. # 26. The Court concluded

5

that allowing joinder of USAA Employer would violate the rule of “complete diversity” and

6

would therefore deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

7

The subpoena at issue in this motion seeks information from non-party Lincoln National

8

Life Insurance Company. The subpoena mainly requests that Lincoln National produce

9

information related to Plaintiff’s employment (such as leave requests, employee benefit plans, or

10

disability insurance plans), but also seeks “[a]ll correspondence with or relating to Plaintiff.” See

11

Dkt. ## 20 at 8; 19 at 2.

12

III.

13

ANALYSIS

14

Defendant moves to quash the subpoena and, in the alternative, for a protective order.

15

Dkt. # 19. Defendant argues that the discovery sought is not relevant to any of Plaintiff’s

16

insurance-related causes of action. Id. at 4–7. Rather, Defendant says that discovery is relevant

17

only to the wrongful termination claim against USAA Employer proposed as part of Plaintiff’s

18

motion for leave to amend, which, as noted, the Court has since denied. Id.; Dkt. # 26 (denying

19

in part motion for leave to amend). In its reply brief, Defendant also argues that the subpoena is

20

void because it exceeds the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court. Dkt. # 25 at 2.

21

Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s motion on two grounds. First, Plaintiff argues that

22

Defendant lacks standing to quash the subpoena. Dkt. # 21 at 7–8. Second, he asserts that the

23

information sought is relevant not only to the since dismissed employment claim, but also to the

24

insurance-related claims. Id. at 9.
ORDER - 2

Case 3:22-cv-05462-JHC Document 28 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 5

1

A party generally lacks standing to quash a subpoena issued to a non-party under Federal

2

Rule of Civil Procedure 45 “unless the party claims a personal right or privilege with respect to

3

the documents requested in the subpoena.” See, e.g., Erickson v. Microaire Surgical Instruments

4

LLC, No. C08-5745BHS, 2010 WL 1881946, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 6, 2010); 9A Charles Alan

5

Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2459 (3d ed. 2008) (“Ordinarily a

6

party has no standing to seek to quash a subpoena issued to someone who is not a party to the

7

action, unless the objecting party claims some personal right or privilege with respect to the

8

documents sought.”); Freed v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 18cv359-BAS (LL), 2019 WL

9

582346, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2019); Televisa, S.A. de C.V. v. Univision Communications,

10

Inc., No. CV 05-3444 PSGMANX, 2008 WL 4951213, at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2008). But

11

“[t]he Ninth Circuit has yet to address the question of whether a party has standing to bring a

12

motion to quash since usually only the subpoenaed non-party may move to quash.” California

13

Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc., 299 F.R.D. 638, 643 (E.D. Cal. 2014).

14

Here, Defendant identifies no “right or privilege in the information sought to be

15

disclosed.” Freed, 2019 WL 582346, at *2. Defendant does not, for example, argue that the

16

discovery sought contains its confidential or privileged information, or that Defendant has any

17

cognizable interest in preventing disclosure. Instead, Defendant merely argues that the

18

information sought is irrelevant to the insurance-related claims that remain at issue in the case.

19

But see Redick v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC, No. 1:21-CV-00358-SAB, 2022 WL 3717996, at

20

*3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2022) (“Under this general [standing] rule, plaintiff lacks standing to

21

object to the subpoena on grounds of relevance.”).

22
23

Defendant does not respond to Plaintiff’s standing argument; its reply brief does not use
the word “standing” once. Nor does Defendant provide any argument addressing whether the

24
ORDER - 3

Case 3:22-cv-05462-JHC Document 28 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 5

1

analysis differs for protective orders under Rule 26(c); in fact, Defendant presents no legal

2

argument in support of its alternative request for a protective order.

3

Given Defendant’s failure to advance any argument to support standing, the Court finds

4

that Defendant has conceded the issue, and that Defendant lacks standing to quash the subpoena

5

under Rule 45. See, e.g., Redick, 2022 WL 3717996, at *3 (denying the motion to quash because

6

“Defendant does not directly address Plaintiff's argument or standing at all. . . . The Court

7

considered offering Defendant an opportunity to submit supplemental briefing on this issue or to

8

address at the hearing, however, the Court finds Defendant had a full opportunity to address the

9

issue of standing in light of Plaintiff's argument raised.”); Kroeger v. Vertex Aerospace LLC, No.

10

CV 20-3030-JFW(AGRX), 2020 WL 3546086, at *8 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2020) (collecting cases

11

in which a party’s failure to respond to an argument constitutes forfeiture of that argument). The

12

lack of argument is particularly consequential when, as here, a party challenges something as

13

fundamental as standing.

14

Defendant nevertheless insists that the subpoena is “void in exceeding subject matter

15

jurisdiction.” Dkt. # 25 at 2. Defendant appears to argue that because Plaintiff’s proposed

16

amendment to add an employment claim against USAA Employer would have deprived the

17

Court of subject matter jurisdiction, any subpoena seeking information related to such a claim is

18

void. In support, Defendant cites a Supreme Court case in which the Court stated that “Federal

19

Rule of Civil Procedure 45 grants a district court the power to issue subpoenas as to witnesses

20

and documents, but the subpoena power of a court cannot be more extensive than its

21

jurisdiction.” U.S. Cath. Conf. v. Abortion Rts. Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 76 (1988). But

22

in that case, the Supreme Court confronted a situation in which the district court lacked

23

jurisdiction over the action as a whole. See id. (“[I]f a district court does not have subject-matter

24

jurisdiction over the underlying action, . . . then the process is void.” (emphasis added)). Here,
ORDER - 4

Case 3:22-cv-05462-JHC Document 28 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 5

1

the Court maintains subject matter jurisdiction over the action: Because the Court denied

2

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to add an employment claim against USAA Employer, the

3

parties remain completely diverse, and the Court retains subject matter jurisdiction over the

4

action.

5

Finally, the Court notes that Lincoln National—as the recipient of the subpoena—would,

6

of course, have standing to challenge the relevancy of the discovery sought by the subpoena. If

7

Lincoln National moves to quash the subpoena, the Court will scrutinize the relevance of the

8

information sought to the remaining claims.

9

IV.

10

CONCLUSION

11

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion. Dkt. # 19.

12

Dated this 17th day of November, 2022.

13
14

John H. Chun
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER - 5