Diaz v. New York Paving Inc.

Background

The opinion is a memorandum endorsement concerning a subpoena directed to nonparty Emque Systems Service, Inc. The underlying plaintiffs allege that New York Paving violated employment laws by failing to pay them for work allegedly performed at the company’s central yard before or after paving shifts. The opinion does not decide those underlying wage claims.

According to Emque’s filing, Emque created and installed New York Paving’s proprietary payroll system approximately 25 to 30 years earlier and later performed limited maintenance and repairs. Emque’s counsel argued that Emque had no knowledge of the individual plaintiffs or New York Paving’s pay policies, practices, or procedures. Counsel also argued that the subpoena sought broad categories of records, including contracts, invoices, statements, and communications covering 25 or more years, as well as payroll information that plaintiffs already possessed from New York Paving.

Application to Quash

Emque asked the court to quash, or cancel, the subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. Its arguments included that the subpoena was cumulative, unduly burdensome to a nonparty, insufficiently tailored, and served without adequate notice. Emque also asserted that plaintiffs had not adequately met and conferred, had not filed proof of service, and had not agreed to reimburse compliance costs.

The court did not resolve whether the subpoena was substantively overbroad or whether the requested records were duplicative. Instead, the court stated that both Emque’s letter and the plaintiffs’ response reflected that Emque had not complied with paragraph 2 of the court’s Individual Practices. That provision requires a good-faith telephone or in-person conference with relevant parties before a discovery dispute is presented to the court.

Ruling

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied the application. Although the court acknowledged the need to avoid placing an undue burden on a nonparty subpoena recipient, it determined that the best next step was a telephone conference involving plaintiffs and a knowledgeable information-technology professional from each side.

The court directed Emque to respond as fully as possible to plaintiffs’ questions about the documents they sought. It stated that complete and cooperative disclosure might eliminate the need for deposition testimony. The court also directed plaintiffs to cooperate in minimizing the burden on Emque and stated that Emque should explain precisely what burden compliance would impose if the information could not be supplied quickly and easily. Emque’s counsel was ordered to arrange the conference as soon as possible. The endorsement states only that the application was denied; it does not state that costs or attorney’s fees were awarded.