Fishon v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs moved to quash, meaning to invalidate, Peloton’s subpoena requiring Dana McMahon to appear for a deposition. McMahon was an unrepresented absent class member. The opinion states that the plaintiffs’ counsel did not represent McMahon and that McMahon was willing to appear.

The court had previously authorized limited discovery of absent class members in the case. It had also previously determined that Peloton had a reasonable basis to depose absent class members for class-certification purposes and that allowing those depositions did not pose a risk of costly, irrelevant diversion or undue burden.

Standing

The court first concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the motion. Generally, a party cannot object to a subpoena directed to a nonparty unless the party claims privilege or identifies a privacy or proprietary interest in the information sought. The plaintiffs identified no privilege or right that McMahon’s deposition would violate.

Merits of the Motion

The court separately rejected the motion on its merits. It explained that its prior order did not limit depositions to absent class members represented by plaintiffs’ counsel, and that the law does not impose such a limitation. The plaintiffs offered no evidence that McMahon’s deposition would be unreasonably intrusive or that the court should change its prior conclusion about the need for these depositions.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion to quash. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.