Franklin v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-04935
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Franklin v. Whole Foods, Judge Caproni denied without prejudice Franklin’s motion to quash subpoenas because it did not follow discovery-dispute procedures.
Franklin’s motion to quash was denied without prejudice for failure to follow the court’s discovery-dispute procedures. The order allowed him to raise the dispute again after complying with those procedures, and it did not resolve the subpoenas’ relevance or the request for sanctions.
What happened
In Franklin v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Franklin asked the court to cancel four subpoenas that Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. had served or planned to serve on other companies. The subpoenas sought records about Franklin’s job applications, background checks, employment outcomes, reasons for rejection, and compensation.
Franklin argued that the information was unrelated to the claims in this case and that the subpoenas invaded his privacy. He also asked the court to sanction defense counsel. The court did not decide whether the requested information was relevant or whether sanctions were appropriate.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied the application without prejudice because Franklin’s motion did not follow the court’s required procedures for discovery disputes. The court said Franklin could raise the dispute again after his counsel met and conferred in good faith with opposing counsel and satisfied the other requirements. The clerk was directed to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Franklin v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04935
- Valerie Caproni
- May 10, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Franklin moved to quash, meaning to cancel, four subpoenas directed to nonparties. The motion concerned subpoenas that Defendants Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. had served or intended to serve on FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., Fresh Direct LLC, Vertex Global Solutions, Inc., and Dutch Express LLC. The opinion states that copies were provided for the subpoenas directed to the first three companies, while Defendants had stated that they intended to subpoena Dutch Express without providing a copy.
The three reproduced subpoenas requested documents and communications concerning Franklin’s employment applications, background checks, application outcomes, reasons for rejection, job descriptions, and compensation. Franklin argued that these materials had no logically conceivable relationship to Defendants’ liability and that the subpoenas were intended to harass him and intrude on his privacy. He also asked the court to award attorney’s fees or impose sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court’s inherent power.
Ruling
The court entered the following disposition: “Application DENIED without prejudice.” It explained that Franklin’s motion to quash did not comply with the court’s Individual Practices concerning discovery disputes, specifically Rule 3(B). That rule required Franklin’s counsel to meet and confer in good faith with opposing counsel, among other requirements.
The court stated that Franklin was welcome to raise the discovery dispute again in compliance with Rule 3(B). It directed the Clerk of Court to close the open motion at docket entry 66. The order did not decide whether the subpoenas were relevant, whether they invaded Franklin’s privacy, or whether defense counsel should be sanctioned.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.