McGlade v. MMA Global Holdings, Corp

Background

Alan R. McGlade sued MMA Global Holdings, Corp., FLX Media, Inc., Eagle FC, Inc., MMAx LLC, Eliot Tawil, Akhmed G. Bilalov, and Maxim F. Finskiy. The complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. McGlade alleged that the corporate and individual defendants were his employers under those laws. The opinion states that McGlade had been the chief executive officer and board chair of FLX Media, the chief operating officer of Eagle FC, and a director of MMA Global until his termination on or about February 3, 2022.

McGlade served subpoenas on Vladislaya Finskaya and Valex Holdings, LLC, which were not parties to the lawsuit. The subpoena to Finskaya requested documents concerning her role in Valex, her relationships and transactions with the defendants, Valex’s funding and purpose, and communications with the defendants. The subpoena to Valex sought testimony from a corporate representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), covering 26 categories, along with documents supporting the testimony and documents and communications concerning transactions and relationships with the defendants and several other entities.

Arguments

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3) to quash the subpoenas. The opinion explains that a subpoena is subject to the relevance and proportionality limits of Rule 26(b)(1), which allows discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.

McGlade argued that the subpoenas sought relevant information because he claimed Finskiy used Valex and Finskaya as pass-through entities or intermediaries to fund the corporate defendants. He contended that this information could show Finskiy’s control and establish that he qualified as an employer under the wage laws. The defendants argued that the requested information was irrelevant and intended to annoy and harass.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the subpoenas were overbroad on their face. The subpoena to Finskaya sought all documents relating to her relationship with the defendants, all financial transactions with them, and all communications with them. The court stated that McGlade was not entitled to all documents concerning the relationship and communications between Finskaya and her husband, Finskiy, merely because he was one of the defendants. The court also noted that McGlade had not explained how information about Valex’s funding or transactions before or after his employment was relevant to his claims.

The court found the subpoena to Valex similarly broad because it had no time limit, was not limited to transactions with the corporate defendants, and included entities that were not parties. The court also described the requested correspondence with the corporate and individual defendants as extremely broad.

Disposition

The court stated that narrowing a subpoena is generally preferred to quashing it. Because neither side had provided enough information for the court to narrow the subpoenas, the court did not yet grant or deny the motion to quash. Instead, it ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a letter identifying each remaining disputed subpoena category, McGlade’s proposed narrower definition, whether the defendants agreed, and a brief explanation of relevance and response for each category. The court scheduled a conference for December 20, 2022, and stated that it would then rule on the request to modify the subpoenas. The court warned McGlade that an overbroad request could result in quashing and warned the defendants that it could disregard an overbroad or frivolous objection.