Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01204/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01204-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441er Removal- Employment Discrimination (Race)

---

1

18cv1204-GPC (RBB)

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHEIDA HUKMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv1204-GPC (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING NONPARTY 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.'S 

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA

DUCES TECUM FOR THE 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

[ECF NO. 31]

On March 21, 2019, Nonparty American Airlines, Inc. ("American") filed a motion 

to quash subpoena duces tecum issued by Plaintiff Sheida Hukman ("Hukman") for the 

production of documents [ECF No. 31]. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is 

GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Hukman, proceeding pro se, alleges that her former employer, Defendant 

Southwest Airlines Co. ("Southwest"), subjected her to various forms of discrimination 

and harassment because of her national origin, described by Hukman as "Middle Eastern 

of Kurdish descent from Iraq." (Compl., ECF No. 1-2 at 2, 6.)

1

 She asserts eight 

 

1 The Court cites to documents as paginated on the electronic case filing system.

Case 3:18-cv-01204-GPC-RBB Document 58 Filed 05/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

18cv1204-GPC (RBB)

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

27

28

overlapping federal and state claims against Southwest, including discrimination, 

retaliation, failure to hire as a supervisor, improper training, and harassment in violation 

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; retaliation and failure to stop discrimination 

and harassment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; and 

wrongful termination in violation of California public policy. (Id. at 3, 15.) Hukman

seeks job reinstatement, back pay and benefits, punitive damages, moving expenses, and 

compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering, loss of reputation, and loss of 

future earnings. (Id. at 16-17.) 

On February 26, 2019, Hukman sent a subpoena to produce documents to the 

custodian of records for nonparty American Airlines, Inc./US Airways Inc. via certified 

mail. (Mot. Quash, ECF No. 31-2 at 2, 4.) Hukman previously worked for American as 

a Customer Service Agent. (Id., ECF No. 31-1 at 5.) The subpoena seeks information 

regarding four nonparty American employees, Laura Williams-Anderson, Michelle Woo, 

Tomas Reveles, and Jacqueline Edwards, including documents relating to employment 

applications, benefits, leaves of absence, performance reviews, suspensions, fingerprints, 

complaints, workplace injuries, administrative filings (including unemployment and 

disability filings), and personnel files. (Id., ECF No. 31-2 at 8-11, 14-17.)2 The 

subpoena also requests the production of complaints made by these employees about 

Hukman being a "terrorist" to authorities such as the TSA (Transportation Security 

Administration), FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and Department of 

Transportation. (Id. at 9, 10, 14, 17.) Additionally, the subpoena seeks documents 

reflecting communications made by Woo to US Airways Human Resources regarding 

Hukman (id. at 11); communications between Reveles and Hukman, between Reveles 

and Edwards, Michelle Nolan, and Williams-Anderson, between Reveles and Las Vegas 

Management and Human Resources, and between Reveles and Philadelphia Management 

 

2 The subpoena also seeks documents relating to Hukman's employment with American. (Mot. Quash, 

ECF No. 31-2 at 12-13.) These requests are not at issue in this motion. (Id., ECF No. 31-1 at 5 n.1.) 

Case 3:18-cv-01204-GPC-RBB Document 58 Filed 05/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

18cv1204-GPC (RBB)

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

27

28

and Human Resources (id. at 15); and communications between Edwards and WilliamsAnderson (id. at 17).

On March 21, 2019, American filed the present motion to quash subpoena. 

American argues that Hukman seeks documents that are irrelevant to her claims in this 

lawsuit and not proportional to the needs of the case, that contain personal and highly 

confidential information regarding American's employees, and that may be used 

improperly in Hukman's separate litigation against American. (Id., ECF No. 31-1 at 5, 

10-17.) The motion was referred to the undersigned on April 30, 2019, and the Court 

issued a briefing schedule on May 1, 2019 [ECF Nos. 48, 49]. Defendant Southwest filed 

a notice of non-opposition to the motion on May 10, 2019 [ECF No. 56]. Hukman did 

not file an opposition. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs discovery of nonparties by 

subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. The scope of discovery that can be requested through 

a subpoena is the same as the scope under Rule 34, which is governed by Rule 26. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 advisory committee note to 1970 Amendment ("[T]he scope of 

discovery through a subpoena is the same as that applicable to Rule 34 and other 

discovery rules."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) ("A party may serve on any other party a request 

within the scope of Rule 26(b)."). Under Rule 26, "[p]arties may obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

A party responsible for issuing a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid 

imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(d)(1). The court is required to enforce this duty, particularly when a subpoena has 

been served upon a nonparty to the litigation. See id.; High Tech Medical 

Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc., 161 F.R.D. 86, 88 (N.D. Cal. 1995). On 

timely motion, the court must quash or modify a subpoena that requires disclosure of 

privileged or other protected matter, or that subjects a person to undue burden. Fed. R. 

Case 3:18-cv-01204-GPC-RBB Document 58 Filed 05/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

18cv1204-GPC (RBB)

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

27

28

Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii), (iv). On a motion to quash subpoena, the moving party bears the 

burden of persuasion under Rule 45(d)(3), but the party issuing the subpoena must 

demonstrate the discovery sought is relevant. Fujikura Ltd. v. Finisar Corp., Case No. 

15-mc-80110-HRL (JSC), 2015 WL 5782351, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015) (citation 

omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Hukman's Failure to Oppose the Motion

The Court may grant American's motion to quash on the basis that Hukman failed 

to oppose the motion. Civil Local Rule 7.1 provides, “If an opposing party fails to file 

the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute 

a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” See S.D. 

Cal. Civ. R. 7.1.f.3.c. Under Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, the time for filing an opposition to 

a motion is no later than fourteen calendar days prior to the noticed hearing. Id., 7.1.e.2. 

The Court issued a briefing schedule confirming the due date of May 10, 2019, fourteen 

calendar days prior to the hearing date of May 24, 2019, for Plaintiff to file an opposition 

to the motion. (See May 1, 2019 Order, ECF No. 49.) Hukman did not file an 

opposition. Accordingly, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1, the Court GRANTS

American's unopposed motion to quash, as Hukman has consented to the granting of the 

motion by failing to oppose it. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1.f.3.c; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 

F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming grant of unopposed motion to 

dismiss based upon local rule that the failure to file an opposition to any motion 

constituted a granting of the motion).

B. Merits of American's Motion

Notwithstanding Hukman’s failure to oppose the motion to quash, the Court now 

turns to the merits of American's motion. In determining whether a subpoena poses an 

undue burden, courts “weigh the burden to the subpoenaed party against the value of the 

information to the serving party.” Travelers Indem. Co. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 

228 F.R.D. 111, 113 (D. Conn. 2005); see also Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633, 

Case 3:18-cv-01204-GPC-RBB Document 58 Filed 05/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

18cv1204-GPC (RBB)

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

27

28

637 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Generally, this requires consideration of “relevance, the need of 

the party for the documents, the breadth of the document request, the time period covered 

by it, the particularity with which the documents are described and the burden imposed.” 

Travelers, 228 F.R.D. at 113 (quoting United States v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 83 F.R.D. 

97, 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)). Here, the value of the information sought, as it relates to this 

litigation, is greatly outweighed by the burden the subpoena imposes on American. The 

subpoena is overbroad on its face as it seeks information not relevant to the claims in this 

action, seeks a broad range of personal and confidential information of American’s 

employees, and is not narrowly tailored to the needs of this litigation. Hukman's claims 

in this case relate solely to her employment with Southwest, and her complaint makes no 

mention of Woo, Reveles, or Edwards. Although the complaint does reference WilliamsAnderson, it does not contain any allegations arising out of Williams-Anderson's 

employment with American. Hukman has not provided any reasoning as to why

employment records relating to employees of another company have any bearing on this 

case. Moreover, she has not shown that reports that she is a "terrorist" are relevant to her 

claims, nor has she demonstrated the relevance of any communications she has had with 

these individuals or their communications with other persons or entities.

As to the personal and confidential employment information sought by the 

subpoena, federal courts recognize “[a] person’s interest in preserving the confidentiality 

of sensitive information contained in his personnel files.” Nakagawa v. Regents of Univ. 

of California, No. C 06-2066 SI, 2008 WL 1808902, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2008) 

(citing Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 440 U.S. 301, 319 n.16 (1979)). 

Therefore, a constitutionally-based right to privacy is properly raised in response to 

requests for discovery. Id. (citations omitted). “To evaluate privacy objections under 

either federal or state law, the Court must balance the party’s need for the information 

against the individual’s privacy right in his or her employment files.” Tierno v. Rite Aid 

Corp., No. C 05-02520 TEH, 2008 WL 3287035, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2008) (citing 

cases). The privacy rights of Williams-Anderson, Woo, Reveles, and Edwards in their 

Case 3:18-cv-01204-GPC-RBB Document 58 Filed 05/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

18cv1204-GPC (RBB)

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

27

28

employment applications, leaves of absence, performance reviews, complaints, 

workplace injuries, and the like greatly outweigh any need for Hukman to have these 

documents, particularly given that this information has no bearing on Hukman’s 

allegations against Southwest in this case. 

American argues that Hukman likely intends to use the information sought in the 

subpoena in her separate lawsuit or administrative charge against American, currently 

pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the 

United States Department of Labor Administrative Review Board, respectively. (Mot. 

Quash, ECF No. 31-1 at 6-7, 17.) A party is not permitted to exploit the liberal federal 

discovery rules to obtain information for purposes unrelated to the case at hand, including 

for use in other lawsuits. 6 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 

26.101[1][b] (3d ed. 2017). Therefore, Hukman cannot use a subpoena in this case to 

obtain information for use in her separate actions against American. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, American’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces 

Tecum [ECF No. 31] is GRANTED. Hukman consented to the granting of the motion 

by failing to file an opposition. S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1.f.3.c. Further, the subpoena seeks 

documents that bear no relevance to the claims in this case, contain private employment 

information, and appear to be sought for use in other litigation. The Court therefore 

QUASHES the portions of the subpoena seeking documents relating to American 

employees Laura Williams-Anderson, Michelle Woo, Tomas Reveles, and Jacqueline 

Edwards.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01204-GPC-RBB Document 58 Filed 05/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6