Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-3426.
May 6, 2004
ORDER AND OPINION
In this action, plaintiff Joanne Barbine has sued Keystone Quality Transport ("Keystone") under state and federal statutes alleging sexual discrimination. She has served deposition and document subpoenas upon Walter Strine, Walter Strine Jr., and William B. Strine, parties whom she claims may be decision-makers for the defendant company.
Defendant Keystone has moved to quash the subpoenas, arguing that the named individuals "are not in any way involved in the day to day operations of the Defendant, nor possess any knowledge whatsoever of the matters concerning this litigation." Keystone argues that Barbine's real purpose in deposing these individuals, and subpoenaing the requested documents, is to obtain information about Keystone's financial status. Since this information is pertinent only to an award of punitive damage, Keystone maintains that it is covered by Judge Dalzell's Order of January 29, 2004, which precluded the discovery of financial information until after motions for summary judgment were decided.
Here, as with other motions Keystone has filed to quash subpoenas, there is a standing problem. Ordinarily a party lacks standing to seek to quash a subpoena issued to a non-party unless the party claims a right or privilege with regard to the documents sought. 9A Federal Practice Procedure § 2459 at 41 (2d Ed. 1995). If Keystone is, as it claims, unrelated to the Strines, it has no standing to move to quash subpoenas directed to them. For that reason, I am compelled to dismiss this motion, without prejudice to the rights of the appropriate party/parties to refile.
Nevertheless, in the interest of expediency, I note that Barbine has offered to withdraw the subpoenas issued to William Strine, and Walter Strine, Sr. I would recommend that the deposition of Walter Strine, Jr., go forward on this basis. Moreover, because Judge Dalzell refused to dismiss Barbine's claim for punitive damages in his March 30, 2004 Order on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, asset discovery is now appropriate. For this reason, Strine should bring the requested documents to his deposition.
An appropriate Order follows:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 2004, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Quash the Plaintiff's Subpoenas To Appear For Deposition, docketed as Document No. 26 in this case, and formerly dismissed is REINSTATED, and it is further
ORDERED, upon consideration of the above-referenced Motion and Plaintiff's Response thereto, that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to (a) Keystone's right to re-file, upon a showing of standing or (b) the rights of concerned third parties with standing to move to quash the subpoenas, to the extent such motion is necessary following this Opinion.
To the extent that a further motion is necessary, Defendant, or any third party as specified herein, may file a Motion to Quash by May 12, 2004. Plaintiff shall respond by May 17, 2004.