Aguilar v. Walgreen Co.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:20-cv-00124
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Aguilar v. Walgreen Co., Judge Chesney quashed subpoenas seeking records from another lawsuit because plaintiffs did not show the records were relevant.
The plaintiffs and third-party Allison C. Eckstrom were directly affected. The plaintiffs could not enforce the two subpoenas seeking records from Eckstrom’s law firm, and Walgreen Co.’s counsel was not required to produce those records.
What happened
In Aguilar v. Walgreen Co., the plaintiffs subpoenaed records held by Allison C. Eckstrom’s law firm about the proposed settlement and discovery in a different lawsuit against Walgreen Co. Eckstrom, who was counsel for Walgreen Co., asked the court to quash the subpoenas.
The court explained that subpoenas must seek information relevant to a claim or defense and must not impose an undue burden. Because the subpoenas sought information from the defendant’s counsel, the plaintiffs also had to show that no other source could provide the information, that it was relevant and not protected, and that it was crucial to preparing the case. The plaintiffs said they wanted the information to evaluate the proposed settlement in the other lawsuit and acknowledged they did not intend to use it to prove liability in this case.
Judge Chesney found that the plaintiffs had not shown that the requested records were relevant under either standard. The court therefore quashed the subpoenas.
The detailed version
- Aguilar v. Walgreen Co. · No. 3:20-cv-00124
- Maxine Chesney
- Sept. 15, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs and third-party Allison C. Eckstrom filed a joint discovery letter. Eckstrom, who was counsel for Walgreen Co., moved to quash two subpoenas served by the plaintiffs. The subpoenas sought records in Eckstrom’s law firm’s possession concerning the proposed settlement and discovery in a different lawsuit against Walgreen Co., identified in the opinion as Caves v. Walgreen Co., No. 2:18-cv-02910-MCE-DB.
Eckstrom argued that the plaintiffs had not established that the subpoenas were proper or that the requested records were needed.
Applicable standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs subpoenas directed to nonparties. Under Rule 45, a court must quash or modify a subpoena that requires disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected material without an applicable exception or waiver, or that subjects a person to an undue burden. The scope of subpoena discovery is governed by the same relevance and proportionality limits that apply to ordinary discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). Information must be relevant to a party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.
The court also explained that discovery from opposing counsel is allowed only in limited circumstances. Under the standard described in Shelton v. American Motors Corp., the party seeking such discovery must show that no other means exist to obtain the information, that the information is relevant and not privileged, and that it is crucial to preparing the case.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the subpoenas were proper under either Rule 45 or the standard governing discovery from opposing counsel. The plaintiffs stated that they sought the information to evaluate the proposed settlement in the other lawsuit. They also acknowledged that they did not purport to use the requested information to prove liability in this case.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that the records produced in discovery in the other lawsuit were relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. Because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule 26’s relevance requirement, the subpoenas could not be enforced.
Disposition
Judge Maxine Chesney quashed the subpoenas. The opinion does not state that the underlying case was dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.