1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

KAREN BARNES,

Plaintiff,

v. 

ROAD CARRIERS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-1012-SDJ-KPJ

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Karen Barnes’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Quash or 

Modify Defendants’ Notices of Intention to Take Deposition by Written Questions and of 

Subpoenas to Plaintiff’s Medical Providers (the “Motion”) (Dkt. 17), wherein Plaintiff seeks to 

quash notices of intent to take depositions by written questions and accompanying subpoenas for 

documents (the “Subpoenas”) to the custodians of records for the following medical providers: 

Akumin (Preferred Imaging); Remedy Surgery Center; The SOAR Institute; ATI Physical 

Therapy; and Integrity Anesthesia (collectively, the “Medical Providers”). See Dkt. 17 at 2, 4–10. 

The Subpoenas generally seek information regarding insurance and billing policies of the Medical 

Providers including specific information regarding the billing codes associated with the treatment 

Plaintiff received. See, e.g., Dkt. 17-1 at 304–06. Defendants Road Carriers, Inc. (“Road Carriers”) 

and Conrado Pardillo Carou also known as Conrado Carou Pardillo (“Carou”) (collectively, 

“Defendants”) filed a response (the “Response”) (Dkt. 24), wherein Defendants challenge 

Plaintiff’s standing to raise the objections in the Motion (Dkt. 17). Dkt. 24 at 2–3.

“Parties have limited standing to quash subpoenas served on non-parties pursuant to 

Rule 45.” Donaldson v. Crisp, No. 22-cv-111, 2023 WL 6201372, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2023)

(first citing McGowan v. S. Methodist Univ., No. 18-cv-141, 2023 WL 2920848, at *2 (N.D. Tex. 

Case 4:23-cv-01012-SDJ-KPJ Document 27 Filed 05/21/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 562
2

Apr. 11. 2023); and then citing E.E.O.C. v. Charles W. Smith & Sons Funeral Home, Inc., No. 21-

cv-731, 2022 WL 3566927, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2022)). “Absent possession of the documents 

at issue or a personal right or privilege with respect to the subpoenaed materials, a party generally 

does not have standing to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued to a third party.” E.g., La. Corral 

Mgmt., LLC v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 650 F. Supp. 3d 491, 500 (E.D. La. 2023) (citations omitted). 

A “personal right or privilege” is “generally found . . . when the party ha[s] an evidentiary privilege 

as to the documents.” Jez v. Dow Chem. Co., 402 F. Supp. 2d 783, 785 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (collecting 

cases).

In the Motion (Dkt 17), Plaintiff seeks to quash the Subpoenas on the basis that the 

questions posed in the depositions by written questions are overbroad, irrelevant, burdensome, 

disproportionate to the needs of the case, cumulative, and temporally unrestricted. See Dkt. 17 

at 4–10. Plaintiff does not address whether she has standing to challenge the Subpoenas. Although 

not addressed by Plaintiff, she likely has standing to the extent the Subpoenas seek documents and 

responses related to her personal, private medical information. See, e.g., Dean v. Tyson Foods, 

No. 21-cv-5, 2022 WL 20112617, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2022) (finding the plaintiff had 

standing to bring the motion to quash because the defendant sought documents and responses from 

the non-party related to the plaintiff’s personal, private medical information). However, even if 

Plaintiff has a personal right or privacy interest in some of the information sought in the 

Subpoenas, and thus standing, she still cannot assert the challenges raised in the Motion

(Dkt. 17)—that the Subpoenas are overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant, and 

disproportionate to the needs of the case. See, e.g., Donaldson, 2023 WL 6201372, at *5 (“[E]ven

if [the parties] could challenge the subpoena on the basis of their privacy interest in the bank 

records, a party ‘cannot challenge a subpoena issued to a non-party on the basis that it is overbroad, 

Case 4:23-cv-01012-SDJ-KPJ Document 27 Filed 05/21/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 563
3

irrelevant, or unduly burdensome.’” (collecting cases)). Thus, Plaintiff cannot quash the 

Subpoenas under Rule 45 on the grounds that the requests are overbroad, irrelevant, burdensome, 

disproportionate to the needs of the case, cumulative, and temporally unrestricted.1 See Donaldson, 

2023 WL 6201372, at *5 (finding the party could not quash the subpoena under Rule 45 on the 

grounds that the requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not particularized); Dean, 2022 

WL 20112617, at *3 (finding the party lacked standing to assert objections that the subpoenas 

were overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not relevant); Wilemon Found., Inc. v. Wilemon, No. 19-

cv-136, 2021 WL 1649507, at *3 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 27, 2021) (finding the party did not have 

standing to object to the subpoenas on the basis that they were overly broad and beyond the scope 

of permissible discovery).

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion (Dkt. 17) is hereby DENIED.

1 While a party may lack standing to quash a subpoena, it maintains standing to seek a protective order pursuant to 

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See La. Corral Mgmt., LLC, 650 F. Supp. 3d at 501. The Motion 

(Dkt. 17) seeks only to quash or modify the Subpoenas pursuant to Rule 45. Thus, the Court does not consider whether 

a protective order is appropriate.

Case 4:23-cv-01012-SDJ-KPJ Document 27 Filed 05/21/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 564