Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_04-cv-01213/USCOURTS-almd-1_04-cv-01213-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Breach of Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GERALD & DONA JOWERS, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:04CV1213-MEF

) [WO]

STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY )

COMPANY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

The court conducted oral argument on the defendant’s Motion For Protective Order

(Doc. # 28) and alternative Motion to Quash a non-party’s production of private information

concerning the defendant’s policy holders (Doc. # 28). Plaintiffs filed a water loss claims

with the defendant’s agent and thereafter, their home was inspected by JADE Engineering.

To secure evidence of a pattern and practice of allegedly biased reporting by JADE in claims

investigations performed for State Farm, the plaintiffs now seek the following information,

via subpoena to JADE. State Farm challenges the plaintiff’s right to secure the information:

Copies of any and all inspection reports, evaluations, surveys

and/or any documents expressing Jade’s opinion concerning the

condition of a building or dwelling done on behalf of State Farm

by Jade Engineering frm January 2001 - December 2004.

State Farm objects to the subpoena because it seeks information which is “immaterial

and invasive of the privacy rights of” its policy holders. The plaintiffs challenge State

Farm’s standing to object.

Case 1:04-cv-01213-MEF-WC Document 39 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 3
In this circuit, a party has standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a non-party if

the party alleges a "personal right or privilege" with respect to the subpoenas. Brown v.

Braddick, 595 F.2d 961, 967 (5th Cir. 1979); see also, Florida ex rel. Butterworth v. Jones

Chems., Inc., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10348, 1993 WL 388645 *2 (M.D. Fla. 1993). Given

the defendant’s responses to the court’s inquiries at the oral argument, State Farm has no

personal right or privilege vested in the documents sought by the plaintiffs. The documents

are in the possession of JADE. There is no contractual relationship between JADE and State

Farm, or between JADE and any of the policy holders, pursuant to which JADE is prohibited

from releasing the documents after receiving a subpoena. State Farm will not bear any of the

costs of production, nor will State Farm employees or its operations be encumbered by

production. 

In Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426 (D. Fla.

2005), the Court of Appeals faced the same kind of challenge under very similar

circumstances to those presented by this case. After reviewing the nature of the defendant’s

objections and examining the parties’ relationships, the court make the following findings,

wholly applicable here:

The financial [**7] records sought are business records of nonparties. Defendants have not established any expectation of

privacy in their business transactions with other corporations

and have not made any factual showing that the records are

confidential or proprietary. Therefore, Defendants fail to

establish a "personal right" regarding the records. See Clayton

Brokerage Co., Inc. v. Clement, 87 F.R.D. 569, 571 (D. Md.

1980) (bank customer had no legitimate expectation of privacy

in the contents of checks, deposit slips and other banking

documents subpoenaed from his bank and, therefore, lacked

Case 1:04-cv-01213-MEF-WC Document 39 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 3
standing to challenge the subpoena issued to the bank).

Therefore, Defendants do not have standing under Rule 45 to

quash the subpoenas regarding financial records

Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 231 F.R.D. at 429.

Because the defendant lacks standing, the court declines to consider any of the parties’

arguments on the merits of the motions. Accordingly, upon consideration of the motion, the

alternative motion, and the representations made at the oral argument, it is ORDERED as

follows:

1. The Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.

2. The alternative Motion to Quash the subpoena is DENIED.

DONE this 17 day of February, 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-01213-MEF-WC Document 39 Filed 02/17/06 Page 3 of 3