Gresch v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-05383
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Gresch v. United Parcel Service, Judge Failla deferred ruling on Gresch’s motion to quash subpoenas and required him to report whether he provided the records.
Anthony Gresch, whose employment-related records were sought, and United Parcel Service of America, Inc. and Marty Perricone, who sought permission to issue subpoenas to obtain them.
What happened
In Gresch v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc., Anthony Gresch asked the court to block proposed subpoenas seeking records from his current and former employers, or to issue a protective order. He argued that the subpoenas were too broad and could threaten his ability to keep working.
United Parcel Service of America, Inc. and Marty Perricone argued that the records were relevant and could not be obtained another way. The requested records concerned compensation and benefits Gresch received after working for the defendants, his later job applications, and records about the end of his later employment.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla deferred ruling on the motion to quash. She ordered Gresch to state by April 22, 2022, whether he had provided the records to the defendants; if he did not, the court would then decide whether to allow the proposed subpoenas.
The detailed version
- Gresch v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-05383
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 15, 2022
Background
Anthony Gresch submitted a letter asking the court either to quash—that is, cancel or limit—proposed third-party subpoenas under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 or to issue a protective order under Rule 26. The subpoenas were directed to Gresch’s current and former employers. Gresch argued that seeking those records was disproportionate to the needs of the case and could endanger his ability to maintain employment.
United Parcel Service of America, Inc. and Marty Perricone responded that the subpoenas sought relevant information they had been unable to obtain by other means and were not disproportionate. The proposed subpoenas sought documents about compensation and benefits Gresch received after his employment with the defendants, his later job applications, and records concerning the termination of his later employment.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a person whose personal rights are affected by a subpoena may seek to quash or modify it when, among other things, it requires disclosure of protected information or creates an undue burden. The party issuing the subpoena must first show that the requested information is relevant and material. If that showing is made, the person challenging the subpoena must show undue burden.
The court found that the defendants had established the relevance of the requested information. It also noted that courts in the Second Circuit often require information about later employment to be obtained first through the plaintiff, rather than directly from employers, because that approach is less intrusive.
The defendants said Gresch had refused to provide the documents directly, while Gresch said he would supplement his production to show his earnings from his current employer and could provide more information at his deposition.
Disposition
The court deferred decision on Gresch’s motion to quash until the close of fact discovery. It ordered Gresch to file a letter by April 22, 2022, stating whether he had provided the records described in the proposed subpoenas. After receiving that letter, the court would decide whether to permit the defendants to issue the subpoenas. The opinion did not grant or deny the motion to quash at that time.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.