In assessing a party's motion to quash a non-party subpoena, courts must consider, as a threshold matter, whether the moving party has standing to make such a motion. Doe v. Town of Greenwich, Civ. No. 3:18CV01322(KAD), 2020 WL 2374990, at *2 (D. Conn. Apr. 21, 2020) (“As a threshold matter, the Court considers whether [the movant] has standing to move to quash or for a protective order as to these subpoenas.”).
It is settled law that a party generally lacks standing to object, by motion for a protective order or to quash, to a subpoena for document production from a non-party unless the moving party is seeking to protect a personal right or privilege in the documents sought. Doe v. Town of Greenwich, 2020 WL 2374990, at *1 (D.Conn. April 21, 2020) (citing Langford v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 513 F.2d 1121, 1126 (2d Cir. 1975) (privilege)); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 337 F.Supp.3d 246, 252 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (personal right based on First Amendment right to preserve anonymity from disclosure by defendant-user's internet service provider provides standing to defendant to quash subpoena (citing caselaw)). However, an objection based on lack of relevance or burdensomeness may be raised by the recipient of the subpoena, but not a party.
Ordinarily, a person has standing to object to a subpoena only if she has some personal right or privilege in the subpoenaed documents. Doe v. Town of Greenwich, No. 3:18-CV-01322 (KAD), 2020 WL 2374990, at *3 (D. Conn. Apr. 21, 2020) ("An objecting party lacks standing to challenge a subpoena absent a showing that the objecting party has a personal right or privilege regarding the subject matter of the subpoena." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
If an employee of a defendant employer is not an officer, director, or managing agent of the defendant, then that employee is a non-party witness on whose behalf a defendant ordinarily lacks standing to quash a subpoena. See Doe v. Greenwich, No. 3:18-CV-1322 (KAD), 2020 WL 2374990, at *1-3 (D. Conn. Apr. 21, 2020); U.S. Reg'l Econ. Dev. Auth., LLC v. Matthews, No. 3:16-CV-1093 (CSH), 2018 WL 2172713, at *7-12 (D. Conn. May 10, 2018).