Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01799/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01799-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES T. CARDEN, JR., et al., No. CIV S-09-1799-WBS-CMK

Plaintiffs, 

vs. ORDER

CHENEGA SECURITY &

PROTECTION SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiffs bring this civil action alleging age discrimination. Pending before the

court is plaintiffs’ request to modify subpoenas issued by defendant to third parties (Doc. 14). 

The matter was heard before the undersigned on May 27, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. Michael Barr

Cogan, Esq., appeared for plaintiffs. Dale R. Kuykendall, Esq., appeared for defendant. 

Following oral argument, the matter was taken under submission. 

All 14 plaintiffs were working full-time in 2007 as armed security officers

employed by Pinkerton Government Services, which had the U.S. government contract to

provide security at Shasta and Keswick Dams. As of November 1, 2007, the Pinkerton contract

was taken over by defendant. Prior to the take-over, all plaintiffs applied to defendant to be

Case 2:09-cv-01799-WBS -CMK Document 23 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

retained to work in the same capacity they had worked with Pinkerton. All plaintiffs were denied

employment. Plaintiffs allege they were denied employment based on their age. 

Defendant seeks discovery of documents from third parties, namely former

employers and, for those plaintiff’s who indicated prior military service, the military. As to

records from former employers, defendant’s subpoenas request:

All notes, communications, correspondence, electronic information,

records and documents of any kind that pertain to plaintiff’s employment,

including but not limited to: Plaintiff’s entire personnel file; earnings and

payroll records; job applications, resumes and other documents reflecting

work qualifications and experience; attendance records; disciplinary and

performance-related records, counselings and evaluations; documents

reflecting complaints by or concerning plaintiff and any related

investigations; pre-employment tests or examinations; incident reports;

and workers’ compensation-related documents. 

Defendant limited its requests for prior employment records to employment within the past 10

years. As to military records, defendants’ subpoenas request:

All noted, communications, correspondence, electronic information,

records and documents of any kind that pertain to plaintiff’s military

service, including but not limited to: Plaintiff’s entire service file, records

of plaintiff’s dates of service; earnings and payroll records; proficiency

and conduct reports; disciplinary and performance-related records,

counselings and evaluations; documents reflecting complaints by or

concerning plaintiff and any related investigations; incident reports; and

discharge information including a copy of plaintiff’s DD-214. 

Plaintiffs bring the instant motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

45(c)(3)(A)(iii), which requires the court to modify or quash a subpoena which “requires

disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies.” Thus, the

only issue before the court on plaintiffs’ motion is whether the subpoenas issued by defendant

seek privileged or other protected information. Plaintiffs’ discussion of relevance and

remoteness are not applicable to their motion. Other vehicles exist under the federal rules to

assert that discovery is overbroad, burdensome, remote, or irrelevant. Plaintiffs, however, chose

to bring their motion under Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(iii), which requires the court to limit discovery into

privileged or other protected matters. 

Case 2:09-cv-01799-WBS -CMK Document 23 Filed 06/01/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

At the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel stated that plaintiffs’ concern was that the

subpoenas potentially called for confidential medical records. Defendant’s counsel stated that it

was never his intent to seek medical records. The parties agreed that modifying the subpoenas to

specifically exclude any medical records would address plaintiffs’ concern. This shall, therefore,

be the order of the court as to all subpoenas. The court finds that sanctions are not warranted in

this case and will deny defendant’s request for sanctions. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to modify and/or quash subpoenas pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3)(A)(iii) (Doc. 14) is granted in part and denied in part; 

2. All subpoenas issued to former employers and the military are hereby

modified to specifically exclude any confidential medical information; and

3. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied. 

DATED: May 28, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01799-WBS -CMK Document 23 Filed 06/01/10 Page 3 of 3