For the foregoing reasons Chaikin’s motion to quash subpoenae is granted in

part and denied in part.

ENTER:

\

——
MICHAEL T. acon

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: November 14, 2003


discoverable. Therefore, each subpoena and rider will stand with regard to all
documents relating in any way to the valuation, purchase and tax treatment of an
annuity from Fidelity for Chaikin and each subpoenaed nonparty entity is ordered to
produce all documents responsive to this request. This document production order is
not subject to the accountant-client privilege as Chaikin alleges because at this time he
has failed to provide factual allegations to support the application of the privilege to any
specific documents. See Cok v. Yellow Cab Co., 61 Ill.2d 416, 419-20 (ill. 1975)
(stating in the context of the attorney-client privilege that the “mere assertion that the

matter is confidential and privileged will not suffice.”).

The five nonparty subpoenae will be quashed as to the other two categories of
documents because those requests are overbroad and not reasonablely calculated to
lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. The only claims at issue in this case are
breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. We do not see how all documents
in the possession of the nonparty entities regarding any annuity, financial or insurance
product evaluated, studied or considered for Chaikin and every document referencing
any contacts or communications with Chaikin are relevant to the instant claims. These
requests are overbroad and therefore the subpoenae will be quashed as to these two

categories.


Minute Ore,"*Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Wayne R. Andersen

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

Michael T. Mason

CASE NUMBER 02 C 6596 DATE 11/14/2003
CASE Chaikin vs. Fidelity & Guaranty
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented.)

DOCKET ENTRY:

q) i) Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Qo Brief in support of motion due

Q) gq Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due__

(4) o Ruling/Hearing on set for _at

(5) a Status hearing[heid/continued to} (set for/re-set for} on set for at

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :

(7) o Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) a {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

GFRCP4(m) CLocalRule4i.i CFRCP4i(a)(1) CIFRCP41(a)(2).

(do wt {Other docket entry] For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order,
plaintiffs motion to quash subpoenae {13-1] is granted in part and denied in part. Enter Memorandum
Opinion and Order.

(11) {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court. “Document
No notices required, ; Number
umber of notices :
V | Notices mailed by judge’s staff,

Nov 17 7003

dockering Hf.

14/2003,

Notified counsel by telephone.
Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge

/7

dato mailed notice

courtroom
deputy’s
initials

KE KE

Bee

‘Datefime rece
central Clerk's Office

‘mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

IRWIN CHAIKIN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 02 C 6596
v. ) Judge Wayne R. Andersen
)
FIDELITY AND GUARANTY LIFE ) Mag. Judge Michael T. Mason
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland)
Corporation, ) DOCKETFD
)
Defendant. ) NOV 17 2003

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Michael T. Mason, United States Magistrate Judge:

The plaintiff, Invin Chaikin, has moved to quash defendant Fidelity and Guaranty
Life Insurance Company’s (“Fidelity”) subpoenae to obtain documents from five
nonparty entities. Chaikin sued Fidelity for breach of contract and negligent
misrepresentation in federal court based on our diversity jurisdiction. Chaikin alleges
that Fidelity induced him into purchasing an annuity by misrepresenting the amount of
tax-free income the annuity would generate.

Chaikin brought this motion to quash the five nonparty subpoenae arguing that
they are overbroad and seek information not relevant to the case. Moreover, Chaikin
argues that some of the documents requested in the subpoenae are subject to the
accountant-client privilege and are thus not discoverable. For the reasons set forth
below we grant in part and deny in part Chaikin’s motion to quash the subpoenae.

As an initial matter, Fidelity argues that Chaikin does not have standing to object

r]


to four of the five nonparty subpoenae.' We disagree. A party has standing to object to
a subpoena directed at a nonparty when the party claims a "personal right or privilege"
regarding the documents sought. Minnesota School Boards Ass'n Ins. Trust v.
Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, 183 F.R.D. 627, 629 (N.D.IIl. 1999). Each of the
subpoenae riders requests Chaikin’s individual investment and financial documents.
Chaikin invariably has a personal right to some of these documents. See 9A Wright &
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2459, at 414 (1995 ed.). A party’s
personal right to its bank statements and tax returns has already been established.
Therefore, it follows that a party also has a personal right to its individual investment

and financial documents and Chaikin has standing to file this motion.

Because Chaikin has standing, we will now address the motion on its merits.
The documents requested in the five nonparty subpoenae can be divided into the
following categories: (1) all documents in the possession of the named nonparty entity
relating to the valuation, purchase and tax treatment of an annuity from Fidelity for
Chaikin; (2) ali documents in the possession of the named nonparty entity relating in
any way to the valuation, purchase and tax treatment of any other annuity, financial or
insurance product evaluated, studied or considered for the benefit of Chaikin; and (3)
documents referencing all contacts or communications that the named nonparty entity

had with Chaikin.

Both parties agree that the first category of documents are relevant and

‘ Fidelity objects to Chaikin’s standing to contest the subpoenae issued to Prudential
Securities, Inc., Eppy Financial Group, BISYS Insurance Services and ECA Marketing, Inc.
Fidelity does not contest Chaikin’s standing to contest Weiss & Company LLP’s subpoena.

2