Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00306/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00306-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 38:4311 Uniformed Service Employment/Reemployment Rights Act

---

1

The defendants also contend that the motion to quash fails because the plaintiff did not

demonstrate compliance with FED.R.CIV.P. 45(c)(3) and the plaintiff lacks standing to seek the relief

requested. These arguments are unpersuasive. While FED.R.CIV.P. 45(c)(3) sets out various grounds

upon which a subpoena may be quashed, nothing in the rule compels the conclusion that the 45(c)(3)

grounds are the exclusive basis upon which a court may act. As to the plaintiff’s “standing” to contest the

subpoena, even though he may not have possession of the documents sought, the documents are his

employment records in which he certainly has an interest sufficient to support the requested protection of

the court.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JERRY LEON DEES, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:07-CV-306-MHT

)

HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING )

ALABAMA, LLC, et al, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On March 25, 2008, the court heard argument on the plaintiff’s motion to quash a

FED.R.CIV.P. 45 document subpoena issued by the defendants to International Paper Co.

requesting the production of “updated” records about the plaintiff’s current employment

with the company. The information sought is about the plaintiff’s wages and other

information relevant to the plaintiff’s damage calculations. The plaintiff argues that the

subpoena should be quashed because it was served after the January 15, 2008, discovery

deadline established by the court. (doc. # 63). In response,1

 the defendants argue that

even if the subpoena is properly considered a discovery device, it merely seeks updated

information which is permissible in this instance because it is akin to the requirement

Case 2:07-cv-00306-MHT-CSC Document 132 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 3
2

imposed on parties to supplement prior disclosures. See FED.R.CIV.P. 26(e). The

defendants contend that because no similar duty is imposed on non-parties, it is

appropriate to utilize FED.R.CIV.P. 45 to accomplish the same end.

The supplementation argument fails. The subpoena at issue requests employment

records for the plaintiff from October 12, 2007, to the present. The subpoena issued in

June 2007 requests employment records of the plaintiff “from approximately 1999 to

2005, at International Paper’s Thorsby, AL plant.” At argument, counsel agreed that the

plaintiff was not continuously employed by International Paper and after 2005 there was a

break in his employment. Given this fact and the specificity of the June 2007 request,

characterization of the second subpoena as a request for updated information borders on

the disingenuous. The subpoena seeks new information about the plaintiff’s new

employment with International Paper.

If the subpoena is properly considered a discovery device, it is untimely because it

was served after the discovery deadline. Plainly, the majority rule is that a FED.R.CIV.P.

45 subpoena does in fact constitute discovery. See Buhrmaster v. Overnite Transp. Co.,

61 F.3d 461, 464 (6th Cir.1995), Mortg. Info. Serv., Inc. v. Kitchens, 210 F.R.D. 562, 566

(W.D.N.C.2002); Dreyer v. GACS, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 120, 122 (N.D. Ind. 2001); Integra

Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA, 190 F.R.D. 556, 561 (S.D.Cal.1999); Rice v. United

States, 164 F.R.D. 556, 557 (N.D. Okla.1995); 7 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE §

34.03[2][a]; 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND

PROCEDURE § 2452 (3rd ed.2008). But see O'Boyle v. Jensen, 150 F.R.D. 519 (M.D.Pa.

Case 2:07-cv-00306-MHT-CSC Document 132 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 3
3

1993). Thus, the court concludes that the subpoena is untimely and is due to be quashed.

During argument the court inquired about whether discovery was sought from the

plaintiff about his damages. The consensus of counsel was that this type discovery was

sought from the plaintiff. Thus, while the court will quash the subpoena, the court will

order the plaintiff to insure that he has provided supplemental responses to discovery in

compliance with FED.R.CIV.P. 26(e)(1) and to serve on the defendants a written notice to

that effect on or before April 4, 2008. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. That the motion to quash (doc. # 125) be and is hereby GRANTED.

2. That on or before April 4, 2008, the plaintiff shall serve on the defendant a

written notice of compliance with FED.R.CIV.P. 26(e)(1).

Done this 25th day of March, 2008.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00306-MHT-CSC Document 132 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 3