Scott v. Eglin Fed. Credit Union

In a employment discrimination suit, whether Defendant’s third party subpoena requesting, among many things, information regarding job performance, disciplinary action taken against the Plaintiff, and emails and communication between a specific co-worker and Plaintiff is overbroad, and whether Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena, or alternatively, a Motion for Protective Order should be granted.

The court denied the Motion to Quash Subpoena and granted the Motion for Protective Order limited to the information related to any disciplinary action and any communication between the Plaintiff and the specified co-worker. Because the case was a straightforward gender discrimination case, information relating to the plaintiff’s job performance and disciplinary action taken against the plaintiff would not be relevant per Rule 26(c)(1) to the defense of mitigation of damages. Further, the emails and other communication from the Third-Party would not be relevant in the case with the information being marginal at best and not proportional per Rule 26(b)(1) when balanced with the expenses and time the Third-Party would undertake.

Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoena with Supporting Memorandum of Law

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena

Order Granting Motion to Quash in part