Order on Motion to Quash Subpoena — Lloyd Humphrey v. Tidewater GOM, Inc. (Middle District of Louisiana)

Summary

An order in Lloyd Humphrey v. Tidewater GOM, Inc., et al., No. 20-817-JWD-RLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, dated February 17, 2022 as Document 27. In this personal injury action under general maritime law, the plaintiff moved to quash a Rule 45 subpoena that defense counsel issued on February 15, 2022 to Capital Plus Financial, LLC for any and all banking records regarding the plaintiff. The court finds the subpoena facially deficient because it was issued on the deadline for non-expert discovery and seeks compliance on March 15, 2022, after discovery closed. It grants the motion for expedited hearing and the motion for protective order and quashes the subpoena. The order names Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Order on Motion to Quash Subpoena — Lloyd Humphrey v. Tidewater GOM, Inc. (Middle District of Louisiana).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/27-order-on-motion-for-expedited-hearing-and-order-on-motion-fo-d465e7dcd7/, SHA-256 60a647eeb1788fb10b9b55377e7d348cb1cd51ba5b56d2c895694ca9356a3934.

Full text

Case 3:20-cv-00817-JWD-RLB Document 27 02/17/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LLOYD HUMPHREY CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 20-817-JWD-RLB

TIDEWATER GOM, INC., ET AL.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and/or Alternatively, Motion

for Protective Order (“Motion for Protective Order”) filed on February 16, 2022. (R. Doc. 25).

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Hearing. (R. Doc. 26).

This is a personal injury action brought under general maritime law. (R. Doc. 1). Lloyd

Humphrey (“Plaintiff”) alleges that while working aboard a vessel owned and/or operated by the

Defendants, Plaintiff suffered injuries when he was struck by the discharge of a hose and

knocked to the deck of the vessel .(R. Doc. 1 at 2).

The Court set the deadline to complete non-expert discovery on December 15, 2021. (R.

Doc. 16). The parties then filed a joint motion seeking extensions of various deadlines, including

the deadline to complete non-expert discovery. (R. Doc. 21). As requested by the parties, the

Court reset the deadline to complete non-expert discovery to February 15, 2022. (R. Doc. 23).

That deadline has expired without the parties seeking any additional extensions.

On February 15, 2022, defense counsel issued a Rule 45 subpoena to obtain certain

information from Capital Plus Financial, LLC, which is located in Bedford, Texas. (R. Doc. 25-

2). The subpoena seeks the production of documents of “any and all banking records” held by

the institution regarding Plaintiff. (R. Doc. 25-2 at 3). The subpoena seeks compliance on March

15, 2022, in New Orleans, Louisiana. (R. Doc. 25-2 at 1). It is unclear whether the subpoena has

been served. (See R. Doc. 25-2 at 2).
Case 3:20-cv-00817-JWD-RLB Document 27 02/17/22 Page 2 of 3

On February 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Protective Order (R. Doc.

23) and Motion for Expedited Hearing (R. Doc. 26). Plaintiff seeks an order precluding the

foregoing third-party discovery on the basis that the “records sought by the defendants are

irrelevant and a complete invasion of plaintiff’s privacy.” (R. Doc. 25-1 at 2).

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

45. See Frazier v. RadioShack Corp., No. 10-855, 2012 WL 832285, at *1 (M.D. La. Mar. 12,

2012) (“[A] plaintiff cannot challenge a Rule 45 subpoena directed to a third party on the basis

that. . . that the subpoena is overly broad, or that the subpoena seeks information that is irrelevant

because only the responding third party can object and seek to quash a Rule 45 subpoena on

those grounds.”). Nevertheless, a party has standing to move for a protective order pursuant to

Rule 26(c) seeking to limit the scope of discovery, even if the party does not have standing

pursuant to Rule 45(d) to bring a motion to quash a third-party subpoena. Singletary v. Sterling

Transp. Co., 289 F.R.D. 237, 240 n. 2 (E.D. Va. 2012); Auto–Owners Ins. Co. v. Se. Floating

Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 429 (M.D. Fla. 2005); Washington v. Thurgood Marshall Acad.,

230 F.R.D. 18, 22 (D.D.C. 2005).

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to issue a protective

order after a showing of good cause “to protect a party or person from annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Rule 26(c)’s

“good cause” requirement indicates that the party seeking a protective order has the burden “to

show the necessity of its issuance, which contemplates a particular and specific demonstration of

fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.” In re Terra Int'l, Inc., 134

F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323, 1326 n.3 (5th

Cir. 1978)).

2
Case 3:20-cv-00817-JWD-RLB Document 27 02/17/22 Page 3 of 3

The Court finds it appropriate to issue a protective order and quash the instant subpoena

because it violates the February 15, 2022 discovery deadline. The subpoena was issued on the

very deadline to complete discovery and seeks compliance one month after the close of

discovery. This Court’s local rules provide that “[w]ritten discovery is not timely unless the

response to that discovery would be due before the discovery deadline” and “[t]he responding

party has no obligation to respond and object to written discovery if the response and objection

would not be due until after the discovery deadline.” LR 26(d)(2). Accordingly, a request for

discovery from a party “must be served at least thirty days prior to the completion of discovery”

to be considered timely. See Hall v. State of Louisiana, No. 12-657, 2014 WL 2560715, at *1

(M.D. La. June 6, 2014) (citations omitted) (discovery requests served on party 14 days before

discovery deadline were untimely as the party had 30 days to respond to such discovery

requests). The instant subpoena is facially deficient because it seeks discovery beyond the

Court’s deadline to complete discovery.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Hearing (R. Doc. 26) is

GRANTED to the extent it seeks expedited consideration.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (R. Doc. 25)

is GRANTED. Defendants’ subpoena to Capital Plus Financial, LLC (R. Doc. 25-2) is

QUASHED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall immediately provide a copy of this

Order to Capital Plus Financial, LLC.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 17, 2022.

S
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3

File and source

File: 27-order-on-motion-for-expedited-hearing-and-order-on-motion-fo.pdf
Size: 141,656 bytes
SHA-256: 60a647eeb1788fb10b9b55377e7d348cb1cd51ba5b56d2c895694ca9356a3934
Our copy: 27-order-on-motion-for-expedited-hearing-and-order-on-motion-fo.pdf
Original: No public link identified.