Torre v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Background

Roma Torre and other long-time reporters for New York One (NY1) sued Charter Communications, Inc., doing business as Spectrum, alleging sex and age discrimination under federal, state, and local law. During discovery, the plaintiffs issued a subpoena to Adam Leibner, an agent for Pat Kiernan, Annika Pergament, and Jamie Stelter. The subpoena sought all documents and communications relating to the three individuals’ contracts with Charter, communications with them concerning the plaintiffs, and communications about the allegations in the complaint.

Kiernan, Pergament, and Stelter moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(B) to quash, or invalidate, the subpoena. The court stated that the motion was granted substantially for the reasons in the movants’ briefs.

Standing and Reasons for Quashing the Subpoena

The court held that the movants had standing to object, at least insofar as they sought to protect their own privacy and economic interests. Although the plaintiffs questioned whether the movants could object based on duplication or burden, the court explained that it independently had to limit discovery that was unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or that could be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source.

The court identified three reasons supporting the ruling. First, the subpoena sought a large amount of information from a nonparty that could and should have been sought from Charter, which was a party. The plaintiffs’ speculation that Charter might limit its electronic-discovery search did not justify seeking the information first from a nonparty. The court described the subpoena as extremely broad.

Second, to the extent the plaintiffs contended that Leibner had documents Charter did not possess, they did not show how those documents were relevant. The court explained that nonparty subpoenas remain subject to Rule 26(b)(1)’s requirement that discovery be relevant. Communications about the movants’ contract negotiations or thoughts about the plaintiffs had limited or no relevance to whether Charter denied the plaintiffs opportunities or retaliated against them, except potentially where the communications had been shared with Charter.

Third, on the record before it, the plaintiffs did not show that their need for the documents outweighed the potential privacy and economic harms to the movants. The court rejected the suggestion that protective orders would easily resolve those concerns because the plaintiffs were competitors of the movants as journalists and media personalities, while Charter was the movants’ employer and contractual counterparty.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the movants’ motion and quashed the Leibner Subpoena. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 82. The court stated that the ruling was without prejudice to the plaintiffs serving a new subpoena that was appropriately tailored to the relevance and privacy concerns discussed in the order, if they could show that Leibner was reasonably likely to possess discovery they were unable to obtain from Charter.