Kasi v. A&H Security Services, LLC

Background

Plaintiff Bhawatie Kasi alleged in the complaint that a superior sexually harassed her. During discovery, Defendant A&H Security Services, LLC sought to subpoena and depose Kasi’s ex-husband, Zaman Baksh, who lived with Kasi during the period at issue. A&H Security served a notice of deposition pursuant to subpoena, but agreed to wait while the court considered the dispute.

Parties’ positions

Kasi requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) preventing A&H Security from serving the subpoena and taking Baksh’s deposition. She argued that Baksh did not have relevant information about liability or damages because she had not discussed the underlying events or their effects with him. She also argued that the deposition could aggravate her already difficult living arrangement.

A&H Security opposed the request. It argued that Kasi lacked standing—the legal ability to raise the objection—to challenge a subpoena to a nonparty on relevance or burden grounds. It also argued that Baksh might have relevant information about Kasi’s allegations, her communications, and her living arrangements during the relevant period. A&H Security further argued that Kasi had not shown the specific facts needed to establish good cause for a protective order under Rule 26(c). Both parties requested that the April 23, 2025 discovery deadline be extended only if the court allowed the deposition to proceed.

Court’s action

The court granted the parties’ application for a discovery conference concerning Kasi’s request for a protective order. Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered a teleconference for April 15, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., directed the parties to comply with Rule 2(C) of the court’s Individual Rules of Practice, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 19. The order did not rule on the merits of the protective-order request, did not authorize or prohibit Baksh’s deposition, and did not address the requested discovery-deadline extension.