Eckhart v. Fox News Network, LLC

Background

Ed Henry asked the court to quash, meaning cancel or block, a subpoena that Jennifer Eckhart proposed serving on Henry’s current employer, America’s Real Voice LLC, doing business as Real America’s Voice. The subpoena sought formal and informal complaints alleging inappropriate comments, inappropriate touching, or sexual harassment, as well as evidence of investigations concerning Henry. It also sought information about Henry’s use of drugs or alcohol.

Eckhart opposed the motion. Henry argued that the requested information was irrelevant to the question whether he harassed or assaulted Eckhart while they both worked for Fox News. He also argued that serving the subpoena could damage his relationship with his current employer.

Court’s analysis

The court first held that Henry had standing to challenge the subpoena because he claimed a privacy interest in information about his current employment, and Eckhart did not contest that interest.

The court applied the relevance requirement for subpoenas issued to nonparties. It relied on an earlier ruling in this case that allegations involving anonymous witnesses and people who did not work for Fox News could be relevant to Eckhart’s claim that Henry acted as part of a pattern. Based on that ruling, the court found that information about sexual-harassment complaints at Henry’s current workplace was relevant. The court found the requests concerning drug or alcohol use irrelevant because that information could not support the alleged pattern of misconduct.

The court also recognized that subpoenas directed to a later employer can risk harming the employment relationship. But it found this case unusual because it had received significant publicity and Henry did not suggest that Real America’s Voice was unaware of it. The court therefore found that Henry had not shown the subpoena would damage his relationship with that employer. His prior deposition testimony denying knowledge of complaints did not change the result because a complaint might have been made without being disclosed to him.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied Henry’s motion to quash the subpoena, except that the subpoena must be re-issued without any reference to drug or alcohol use.