Major League Baseball Properties v. Corporacion de Television y Microonda Rafa

Background

Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. (MLB) served an information subpoena and a subpoena requiring documents on non-party TD Bank, N.A. The subpoenas sought information about assets belonging to defendant Corporacion de Television y Microonda Rafa, S.A. (Telemicro), including assets held by non-party respondent Telemicro International Holding Corporation (TIHC) in which Telemicro purportedly had an interest. TIHC moved to quash, or cancel, the subpoenas.

Arguments and Analysis

TIHC argued that the subpoenas were overbroad, unduly burdensome, and sought private records. MLB argued that TIHC lacked standing—the legal right to challenge the subpoenas—because TIHC was not the subpoena recipient. The court did not decide whether New York law governed the dispute, explaining that TIHC could not prevail even under the federal standard, which provides greater protection for privacy interests.

Under federal law, a person or entity that did not receive a subpoena generally cannot object to it unless the person or entity has a privilege, privacy interest, or proprietary interest in the requested documents. The court found that TIHC’s initial filing did not claim a privacy interest in the documents. TIHC therefore could not quash the subpoena on that basis. The court also held that even a party with standing based on privilege or a personal right could not object to the burden imposed on the subpoena recipient. It rejected TIHC’s undue-burden argument for that reason.

The court viewed TIHC’s overbreadth argument as either an objection to the burden imposed on TD Bank or an objection that TIHC’s records were irrelevant because TIHC was an independent entity. The first objection failed for the same reason as the undue-burden argument. The second failed because TIHC lacked standing to challenge relevance without a privacy right. The court also declined to consider TIHC’s argument that the subpoenas sought private federal, state, and city income-tax returns because TIHC raised that argument for the first time in its reply brief. The court additionally stated that it was highly unlikely that a bank would possess the tax returns of its checking-account customer.

Disposition

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied TIHC’s motion to quash, filed as Docket No. 170. The opinion did not rule on the merits of whether TIHC actually held assets for Telemicro; it ruled that TIHC could not use the asserted objections to challenge the subpoenas directed to TD Bank.