UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

MICHAEL MATYSIK, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:15-MC-113-PRC

)

JUDD TRANSPORTATION, LLC, et al., )

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas [DE 1], filed by

Defendants Judd Transportation, LLC, Bolt Express, LLC, and Brett Larsen on December 22,2015.

Plaintiff filed a response on December 28, 2015. Defendants did not file a reply, and the time to do

so has passed.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(1)(A)(iii), a party may serve a subpoena

commanding a nonparty to produce designated documents. Rule 45(d)(3)(B) permits a court to quash

a subpoena based on a timely motion if the subpoena requires the disclosure of “a trade secret or

other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

45(d)(3)(B)(i). As for relevance, “[t]he scope of material obtainable by a Rule 45 subpoena is as

broad as permitted under the discovery rules.” Williams v. Blagojevich, No. 05 C 4673, 2008 WL

68680, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 2, 2008). The broad scope of discovery permits a party to seek

information

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

and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues

at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to

relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in

resolving issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery

outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be

admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
A party that is not the recipient of a Rule 45 subpoena does not have standing to quash the

subpoena unless the party claims a personal right or privilege with respect to the documents sought

in the subpoena. See Powell v. Regency Hosp. of NW. Indiana, LLC, NO,. 2:10-CV-220, 2011 WL

1157528, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2011) (citing Mfr. Direct, LLC v. Directbuy, Inc., No. 2:05-cv451, 2007 WL 496382, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 12, 2007); Teed v. JT Packard & Assocs., Inc., No. 10-

MISC-23, 2010 WL 2925902, at *2 (E.D. Wis. July 20, 2010); Barker v. Local 150, Int’l Union of

Operating Eng’rs, AFL-CIO, No. 08 C 50015, 2010 WL 934068, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 11, 2010)). 

In the motion, Defendants ask the Court to quash subpoenas issued by Plaintiff to nonparty

medical providers of Defendant Brett Larsen, namely Dr. Robinson and North Toledo Clinic.

Defendants argue that the subpoenas are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek protected

information. 

As to relevance and protected information, Defendants argue that they have not put

Defendant Larsen’s health and fitness at issue in this litigation. However, as noted by Plaintiff in the

response brief, this cause of action is based on allegations that Plaintiff suffered damages and

injuries sustained as a result of a tractor-trailer crash in which Defendant Larsen, the driver,

disregarded a stop sign and traffic control device, driving through an intersection and striking

Plaintiff’s vehicle. Both subpoenas seek records relating to Larson’s DOT physical examination

prior to the incident. The Court finds that the information requested in the subpoenas and the time

period for which the records are sought is relevant. Thus, the subpoenas are not overly broad.

As for the subpoenas being unduly burdensome, Defendants do not have standing to make

this argument. Neither of the parties to whom the subpoenas were issued argued that compliance was

2
unduly burdensome. And, Plaintiff represents that the nonparties have already complied with the

subpoenas. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas

[DE 1].

SO ORDERED this 14th day of January, 2016.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3